In this edition of the American Politics Newsletter, we find reactions to the potential retirement of Supreme Court Justice Stevens, strategies of the tea party movement, Financial reform debate in the senate, and Obama's plans for international nuclear deterrence.
American Politics:
At 89, Stevens Contemplates Law, and How to Leave It
By ADAM LIPTAK
WASHINGTON — “There are still pros and cons to be considered,” Justice John Paul Stevens said in his Supreme Court chambers on Friday afternoon, reflecting on his reluctance to leave a job he loves after almost 35 years. But his calculus seemed to be weighted toward departure, and he said his decision on the matter would come very soon.
“I do have to fish or cut bait, just for my own personal peace of mind and also in fairness to the process,” he said. “The president and the Senate need plenty of time to fill a vacancy.”
Hints about Justice Stevens’s possible departure started in September, when he confirmed that he had hired only a single law clerk, instead of the usual four, for the term that will start this fall. In occasional public statements since then, Justice Stevens, the leader of the court’s liberal wing, said he had not yet made up his mind. But the White House is bracing for a summertime confirmation battle, the second of the Obama presidency.
Justice Stevens, who will turn 90 this month, said he did not like to give interviews “because it saves an awful lot of time if you don’t.” But he was courtly and candid in reviewing the trajectory of his tenure on the court and in summing up what he had learned about the role of the judge in American life.
Like last year’s selection of Justice Sonia Sotomayor to replace the retiring Justice David H. Souter, this change would be unlikely to remake the court’s ideological balance. But the matter would in some ways have more resonance, if only because of Justice Stevens’s seniority and mastery of the court’s machinery.
Appointed in 1975 by President Gerald R. Ford, Justice Stevens was in those days considered a somewhat idiosyncratic moderate. These days, he is lionized by the left. But Justice Stevens rejected those labels on Friday, saying that his judicial philosophy was a conservative one.
“What really for me marks a conservative judge is one who doesn’t decide more than he has to in order to do his own job,” he said, relaxed in shirt sleeves and his signature bow tie in chambers floodlit by April sunshine. “Our job is to decide cases and resolve controversies. It’s not to write broad rules that may answer society’s questions at large.”
He is known for his fast and prolific writing, and for relying less on his law clerks than some other justices do.
“I write the first draft,” he said. “One of the tests I had for myself as to when I would retire was that if I ever got to the point that I stopped writing the first draft that would be a sign that I was no longer up to the job the way I think it should be done.”
That day, he said, has not yet come. “Everything that’s got my name on it, I wrote the first draft,” Justice Stevens said.
But he did acknowledge that he had a bad morning in January when he dissented from the bench in Citizens United, the blockbuster decision that said corporations may spend freely to support political candidates. He seemed weary and tripped over ordinary words.
“I did stumble in my oral statement,” he said. “I had been up early that morning writing that statement out, and I had played tennis that morning. Maybe I was tired, and of course I felt strongly about it, but that has never affected my ability to articulate orally what I wanted to say before. It was a novel experience.”
Should Justice Stevens step down, the court will lose its last member who served in World War II and is steeped in the values of that era.
“It really was a unique period of time, in the sense that the total country, with very few exceptions, was really united,” Justice Stevens said. “We were all on the same team, wanting the same result. You don’t like to think of war as having anything good about it, but it is something that was a positive experience.”
He was unapologetic in saying that the justices’ backgrounds necessarily shaped their approaches to the law.
“I’ve confessed to many people that I think my personal experience has had an impact on what I’ve done,” he said. “Time and time again, not only for myself but for other people on the court, during discussions of cases you bring up experiences that you are familiar with.”
He said his military service, as a Navy cryptographer, informed his dissent in Texas v. Johnson, a 1989 decision that said the First Amendment protects flag burning. “I know it’s not the popular position, but I’m still totally convinced I was right,” he said. “I still think I was right, but I wouldn’t amend the Constitution or anything like that to straighten it out.”
His views have generally remained stable, he said, while the court has drifted to the right over time. “To the extent I look back at earlier situations,” he said, “I really don’t think I’ve changed all that much.”
Often, he added, the law requires a certain result, as in the court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which allowed local governments to use the power of eminent domain to take private property for business development.
“The Kelo case was one of my most unpopular opinions, and that was one where I thought the law really was pretty well settled on the particular point,” he said.
Asked if he would have answered the question presented in the case differently had he instead been a legislator, Justice Stevens said probably yes.
“One of the nice things about this job is that you don’t have to make those decisions,” he added. “Very often you think, in this particular spot I don’t have to be deciding the really hard case about what should be done. Which is one of the reasons why the function is really quite different from what people often assume.”
In the area of capital punishment, though, he said his views had shifted.
“I certainly would not have expected during my first years on the court to have written an opinion like I did in Baze,” he said, referring to Baze v. Rees, the 2008 decision that rejected a challenge to lethal injections. Though Justice Stevens voted with the majority, he wrote that he had come to the conclusion that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment. He went on to say that his conclusion did not justify “a refusal to respect precedents that remain a part of our law.”
He explained Friday why he did not follow the approach of Justices William J. Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall, who adopted a practice of dissenting in every death penalty case.
“I’m still a member of the court, and I still have to work,” Justice Stevens said. “I never really agreed with Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall that your own personal view on the issue should prevent you from participating. You’re still a member of the team, and the team has to confront the problem.”
But that did not mean Justice Stevens, who in 1976 voted to reinstate the death penalty, was satisfied with the court’s capital jurisprudence.
“There are a number of death cases that troubled me,” he said. The Baze opinion, he added, “was really my reaction to the developing jurisprudence, which I think moved in a direction that I didn’t expect and is not correct.”
When the talk turned to balancing the pros and cons of moving on, Justice Stevens said the fact that he was still hard at work spoke volumes.
“It’s a wonderful job,” he said. “That’s perhaps the best evidence of it. I wouldn’t have hung around so long if I didn’t like the job and if I didn’t think I was able to continue to do it.”
On the con side, he said he was starting to feel his age. “I have to notice that I get arthritis in my left knee now and then,” he said. “That wasn’t bothering me before. I’m conscious of changes.”
Those changes have even shown up on the tennis court, he said with no little chagrin. “The game isn’t quite as good as it used to be, I have to confess,” he said.
Tea Party Groups Make Harry Reid Target No. 1
By KATE ZERNIKE
LAS VEGAS — The television cameras went 60 miles south, to where Sarah Palin kicked off the “Showdown in Searchlight.”
But come the midterm elections, what may be more significant is what is happening here, in a dark condominium where the Home Depot tags are still on the lawn chairs that double as indoor seating for guests.
The blinds drawn against the desert sun, this is the new burrow of Eric Odom, a chief organizer of the first nationwide Tea Parties last year. Mr. Odom moved here a few weeks ago with his fiancée and a blogger sidekick to mobilize the state’s Tea Party groups for the midterms. By training activists in get-out-the-vote tactics like the “voter bombs” that helped Scott Brown become the new Republican senator from Massachusetts, they are hoping to unseat Nevada’s senior senator and the Democratic leader, Harry Reid.
In a matter of weeks, this state has become ground zero for Tea Party members, who understand that as a symbol of the movement’s power, you cannot get much bigger than beating the Senate’s top Democrat.
The Tea Party Express kicked off its third cross-country bus tour last month in tiny Searchlight, Mr. Reid’s hometown. The group behind it, Our Country Deserves Better, which spent $350,000 in the last weeks of Mr. Brown’s campaign to elect him, has been steadily spending against Mr. Reid for a year. And Tea Party Nation, which sponsored the first Tea Party national convention in Nashville in February, plans to hold its second convention here in July.
Still, while polls suggest that Mr. Reid may lose his bid for re-election, it could be in spite of the Tea Party, not because of it.
There is no doubting the anti-Reid sentiment here. Above Searchlight looms a billboard almost as big as some nearby homes reading “Will Rogers never met Harry Reid,” a play on a famous saying by Rogers that he never met a man he did not like.
But before the Tea Party can claim a victory here, people have to figure out who the Tea Party candidate is. And “Anyone Butt Reid,” as other signs declare, is turning out to be not such an effective strategy.
Tea Party leaders had been planning on uniting behind the Republican candidate to defeat Mr. Reid. But there are 12 candidates in the primary in June, and not one seems to be attracting a majority of Tea Party support. One of the three front-runners, a former state Republican chairwoman, has clashed with a core Tea Party constituency in the past over her refusal to certify delegates for Ron Paul in the 2008 presidential race.
Then there is the problem of Scott Ashjian, an asphalt contractor who filed last month to run as the candidate of the Tea Party of Nevada. The Tea Party, at least elsewhere, is not a traditional political party, but a loose affiliation of groups. Conspiracy theory holds that Mr. Ashjian is a “progressive plant” thrown in by liberals to take votes away from the eventual Republican candidate and to help re-elect Mr. Reid.
“He took advantage of a situation and efforts made by other people,” said Debbie Landis, the leader of Anger Is Brewing, a Nevada Tea Party group. “He underestimated the Tea Party. We’re not going to pull a lever that says ‘Tea Party’ just because it’s the buzzword of the day.”
Maybe not. But with four independent candidates and two minor-party candidates also in the running, Tea Party leaders fear splitting the anti-Reid vote.
A poll by The Las Vegas Review Journal in February, before Mr. Ashjian filed as a candidate, showed a generic Tea Party candidate winning 18 percent of the vote, leaving the unspecified Republican nominee with 32 percent and Mr. Reid with 36 percent.
About 20 Tea Party leaders in the state have signed a letter saying that they do not endorse Mr. Ashjian and that they would not call anyone the “Tea Party candidate” anymore — the preferred term is now “grass roots.”
Mr. Odom, a former Republican consultant, also set about trying to get rid of Mr. Ashjian within a week of moving here from Chicago. He bought the rights to www.ashjian4senate.com, which now redirects visitors to a Web site accusing the candidate of abusing “the Tea Party brand.”
“He forgot to buy the domain name,” Mr. Odom said, wearing a Chicago Cubs cap as he sat in front of the computer terminals he uses to update a growing library of anti-Reid blogs and Web sites. “It’s campaign 101.”
Anger is Brewing joined the Independent American Party in filing suit to remove Mr. Ashjian from the ballot. Last week, the district attorney’s office filed felony charges against him for bouncing a $5,000 check. The head of the office’s bad check division happens to be a former state Republican chairman, though he insists that there was no political motive.
Our Country Deserves Better, run by Republican consultants in California, invested extensively in its Tea Party Express kickoff last month — hiring skywriters to etch phrases like “Vote Reid Out” and “No New Taxes” in the bright blue sky. It has now begun spending against Mr. Ashjian, with a television advertisement that tells him to “get lost.” “None of us has ever heard of you,” Mark Williams, the leader of Our Country Deserves Better, scolds.
The Tea Party movement rejects centralization — activists like to say, “we are all Tea Party leaders” — and some members recognize that Mr. Ashjian’s candidacy may be a hazard of that. “Everybody wants to be the Tea Party,” sighed Tony Warren of the National Precinct Alliance, an effort started by groups here to take over the Republican Party by installing Tea Party members in local committee positions.
People who turned out for the Tea Party Express rally in Searchlight were angry at Mr. Reid, but they did not have any preferred candidate to take him on. And they were just as angry at many Republicans, including the state’s other senator, John Ensign.
“They’re spending money like drug addicts,” said Jeff Church, 55, who had driven from his home in Reno with a “Reject Reid” bumper sticker on his Honda hybrid. “I don’t mean to insult drunken sailors. But drunken sailors, when they run out of money, they stop spending.”
Polls suggest the three front-runners are Sue Lowden, the former state Republican chairwoman; Danny Tarkanian, the son of the legendary former men’s basketball coach for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and the owner of a small real-estate business; and Sharron Angle, a former state assemblywoman.
“If we had all informed voters, it would be Bill Parson that would be our candidate,” Mr. Warren said, referring to another Republican hopeful. “Unfortunately, not everybody pays attention.”
So he is hoping only the most active Tea Party — oops, grass-roots — voters come out.
“We’re telling people, if they don’t have an opinion, don’t guess,” he said. “Stay home.”
Summers expects financial overhaul to pass Senate
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's top economic adviser said Sunday he believes Congress will pass new oversight rules for the financial industry.
Lawrence Summers also said putting even more Americans back to work is a White House "preoccupation."
Saying the employment trend has turned, Summers cautioned that "to get back to the surface we've got a long way to go."
"It is the president's preoccupation to put people back to work," he said.
He also criticized Republicans who are holding up an extension of unemployment benefits, saying the economy still needs emergency action.
On the overhaul of the financial regulatory system, which Obama has said he wants to see passed in the Senate within two weeks, Summers said, "I expect that reform is going to pass."
He said he did not see how the measure could fail "given what we've been through" in the deepest recession in more than 50 years.
Summers predicted the economy will continue creating jobs but slowly and that the unemployment rate will decline slowly because more people will start trying to find work as the economy improves.
He spoke on ABC's "This Week" and CNN's "State of the Union."
Foreign Policy:
U.S. to Delay Chinese Currency Report
By SEWELL CHAN
The Obama administration said Saturday that it would delay a decision on whether to declare China a currency manipulator, but it vowed to press Chinese leaders on the politically charged issue of its currency valuation during a series of meetings through June.
The Treasury’s action seemed intended to send a reassuring message both to China and to Congress. It signaled to China that the administration prefers to resolve the dispute diplomatically, rather than force a showdown, but also pressed the case for a change in China’s policy, a position advocated by many United States lawmakers in both parties.
“China’s inflexible exchange rate has made it difficult for other emerging market economies to let their currencies appreciate,” Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said in a statement. “A move by China to a more market-oriented exchange rate will make an essential contribution to global rebalancing.”
In his statement, Mr. Geithner said he had decided to delay the semiannual exchange rate report to Congress, which was to be due on April 15 and which many members of Congress had hoped would officially cite China as a currency manipulator.
But he made it clear that the United States believed that China has artificially undervalued its currency, the renminbi, which is also called the yuan. China had allowed the renminbi to appreciate from 2005 to 2008, but then resumed the practice of pegging its currency to a nearly fixed rate to bolster its export-oriented economy during the financial crisis.
“China’s continued maintenance of a currency peg has required increasingly large volumes of currency intervention,” Mr. Geithner said.
Mr. Geithner pledged to raise the issue at a series of forums: a meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors from the Group of 20 nations later this month; the annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue between the two countries in China in May; and a meeting of G-20 leaders and finance ministers in June. Mr. Geithner called these meetings “the best avenue for advancing U.S. interests at this time.”
Tensions between the nations have been easing, and China said on Thursday that President Hu Jintao would attend a nuclear security summit meeting in Washington this month.
Many economists believe the renminbi is now undervalued by as much as 40 percent. Some economists expect China to move on its own to adjust the value of the renminbi; by delaying the report the administration may be trying to give the Chinese some breathing room to do so.
Nicholas R. Lardy, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and an authority on the Chinese economy, said the delay made sense given China’s recent steps on other American priorities, including tougher sanctions against Iran and pressure on North Korea over nuclear weapons. “Delaying the currency report is a small price to pay for what we’ve gotten so far,” he said.
He said the statement “reflects the administration’s desire to address this on a multilateral basis rather than a bilateral basis.”
The United States has not found China to be a currency manipulator since 1994. Under successive administrations, officials have tried to persuade China that letting the renminbi appreciate would stimulate domestic demand and reduce reliance on exports. An appreciation would also stimulate private savings in the United States by making imports more expensive and exports less expensive.
Within the Chinese government there has been debate over the issue. The central bank has signaled that a gradual appreciation is in order, but the Commerce Ministry, which represents the interests of the country’s powerful exporters and manufacturers, has argued for maintaining the currency peg.
Last month, 130 House members urged the Obama administration to impose tariffs and other punitive measures on China in retaliation for the undervalued renminbi, and a handful of senators proposed legislation that would effectively threaten China with trade sanctions. Both efforts had bipartisan support.
Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, also criticized the delay.
“Everyone knows China is manipulating the value of its currency to gain an unfair advantage in international trade,” he said. “If we want the Chinese to take us seriously, we need to be willing to say so in public.”
However, another influential lawmaker, Representative Sander M. Levin, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, endorsed the Treasury’s approach. “The announced delay is for a definite period and for a defined purpose,” Mr. Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said in a statement. But he added that if a multilateral effort did not result in China’s making significant changes, “the administration and Congress will have no choice but to take appropriate action.”
Similarly, Leo W. Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, one of the largest manufacturing unions, said he was comforted by the Treasury stance.
“Those are very positive statements,” he said. “We have an administration that’s finally talking about this issue. I’m not so bothered with the postponement if it’s going to bring about a positive direction and change in America.”
The Doomsday Dilemma
This Spring, Barack Obama will push toward his goal of a nuclear-free world. But the stiffest resistance may be at home.
For many years, America's master plan for nuclear war with the Soviet Union was called the SIOP—the Single Integrated Operational Plan. Beginning in 1962, the U.S. president was given some options to mull in the few minutes he had to decide before Soviet missiles bore down on Washington. He could, for instance, choose to spare the Soviet satellites, the Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern Europe. Or he could opt for, say, the "urban-industrial" strike option—1,500 or so warheads dropped on 300 Russian cities. After a briefing on the SIOP on Sept. 14, 1962, President John F. Kennedy turned to his secretary of state, Dean Rusk, and remarked, "And they call us human beings."
Ever since the dawn of the atomic age at Hiroshima in August 1945, American presidents have been trying to figure out how to climb off the nuclear treadmill. The urgency may have faded in the post–Cold War era, but the weapons are still there. By 2002, President George W. Bush was signing off on a document containing his administration's Nuclear Posture Review, an -analysis of how America's nuclear arms might be used. Bush scribbled on the cover, "But why do we still have to have so many?" According to a knowledgeable source who would not be identified discussing sensitive national-security matters, President Obama wasn't briefed on the U.S. nuclear-strike plan against Russia and China until some months after he had taken office. "He thought it was insane," says the source. (The reason for the delay is unclear; the White House did not respond to repeated inquiries.)
During his presidential campaign, Obama embraced a dream first articulated by President Reagan: the abolition of nuclear weapons. The idea is no longer all that radical. In January 2007, an op-ed piece calling for a nuclear-weapons-free world appeared in The Wall Street Journal, signed by Reagan's secretary of state George Shultz; Nixon's and Ford's secretary of state, Henry Kissinger; Clinton's secretary of defense Bill Perry; and Sam Nunn, the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and longtime wise man of the defense establishment. "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse," as they were quickly dubbed, had gotten together to give cover to politicians. "We wanted the candidates of both parties to feel they could debate the issue freely," said Nunn.
So when Obama joined the cry for a world without nukes in his campaign, he wasn't taking a big political chance. His Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, did not seem to disagree. And yet, accomplishing this goal—or even taking some meaningful steps toward it—makes health-care reform look easy. As president, Obama the idealist has had to become Obama the realist: working for a nuclear-free world tomorrow, but at the same time, and at great cost, keeping up America's nuclear forces today.
In a speech in Prague last spring, Obama noted that "in a strange turn of history, the threat of global war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up." He warned that with more nations acquiring nuclear weapons, or wishing to, the scary but oddly stable reign of "mutual assured destruction" was giving way to a new disorder. "As more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the center cannot hold." Obama stated "clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." But, he added, "I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly—perhaps not in my lifetime." And he threw in an important caveat: "Make no mistake. As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies."
Nuclear policy will be front and center for Obama this spring, but in a way that may reveal more about limits than possibilities. On April 8, the president will sign an arms-control treaty with Russia that will set limits on numbers of warheads and launchers, lower than any previously agreed. Progress, to be sure. But it's not entirely clear that a polarized Congress will find the two-thirds majority to ratify the treaty. Its most impassioned opponent, Sen. Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, is already demanding to know whether the "New START" treaty represents "a new era in arms control or unilateral disarmament." For their part the Russians are still smarting from perceived humiliations at the end of the Cold War and are increasingly dependent on nuclear weapons as their conventional forces wither. They seem unlikely to go much further in cutting their arsenal.
The prospect of nuclear proliferation is anxiety-inducing for all presidents, especially as terrorists try to get their hands on loose nukes. Obama is convinced that nuclear terrorism now poses a greater threat than the remote possibility of a nuclear war. On April 12 and 13, he will host a Washington summit of more than 40 heads of government with the aim of getting tougher measures to secure the fissile material still lying unprotected around the world. He's set a deadline of four years for truly securing the most dangerous materials. His own advisers suspect he is being overambitious but see the summit as a "consciousness-raising exercise." Every five years, the signers of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty meet to review progress, and in May they will meet again. The Obama team hopes to use the conference to push his no-nukes agenda, but he will be resisted by countries, like Iran, that resent American power. At the same time, Obama can't cut America's arsenal as much as he might like. Countries long under U.S. nuclear protection, like Japan, may decide they need their own nuclear arms as American power declines in the world. Countries choosing to stay under the nuclear umbrella will want reassurances that they can depend on it.
Obama's dream of a nuke-free world will encounter the stiffest resistance at home—from the people who make and safeguard nuclear weapons. America's nuclear systems are aging, raising questions about the reliability of bombs, planes, and missiles. The U.S. Senate never ratified the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, and though the White House has talked hopefully of getting a vote on the CTBT sometime in a first Obama term, congressional staff experts are skeptical. "The CTBT is going nowhere," says a staffer who declined to be named. "The Republicans are not going to go for it." The GOP rationale: the United States needs to at least preserve the option of testing the reliability of old weapons or developing new ones.
For the past 15 years, the United States has been pursuing what it calls "stockpile stewardship." Atomic labs have used elaborate computer simulations and chemical and physical testing to ascertain whether the aging bombs would still go off. But at some point, the older weapons may have to be seriously upgraded or replaced. The Obama administration is proposing to increase funding for nuclear-weapons work by some $5 billion over five years. The United States needs to train a new generation of nuclear-weapons scientists and build a new plant at Los Alamos to construct plutonium "pits," the fissile cores of U.S. warheads.
Some Obama supporters on the left are outraged. Last month in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Greg Mello, director of the Los Alamos Study Group, a well-informed antinuke group, bitterly decried "one of the larger increases in warhead spending history." Even so, the sweeteners may not be enough. In January, the directors of America's three nuclear labs told Republicans in Congress that they couldn't be confident that stockpile stewardship would work indefinitely to guarantee America's arsenal.
Sometime this week, Obama is supposed to release a long-delayed Nuclear Posture Review. The hope is to lay out a "paradigm shift" in thinking—to move away from war planning and focus on steps toward a nuclear-free world. There will be ambitious plans to safeguard against proliferation, in part by strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency; by providing nuclear fuel to countries that need it (so they don't try to enrich their own uranium); and by better securing nuclear materials from reactors around the world used for research and medicine, ingredients that might be used to build a "dirty bomb."
These are all sensible steps. But on the question of what Obama will do with America's own nuclear weapons, the president is sure to fall shy of his ambitions. Obama has rejected calls to scrap one leg of the "triad" of U.S. nuclear forces: missiles, submarines, and bombers. He does want to get away from the alert status known as "prompt launch," so there is talk of "repositioning" U.S. forces so they could not be quickly taken out by surprise. (The old standards were "launch on warning" or "launch under attack." Obama wants to avoid any kind of hasty response.) But the United States is likely to keep some ICBMs on alert against a Russian or Chinese missile attack.
Obama will call for improved communications with the Russian leadership to avoid what are tactfully called "misperceptions." Obama is also un-likely to make a "no first use" pledge, though the wording will be fudged. The new members of NATO—former Soviet satellites like the Baltic states—would be aghast at any such promise. As for future reductions, the United States has already removed all battlefield nukes from Europe. The Russians have not. Obama's advisers are hoping to trade some of America's "reserve force" of intercontinental weapons for those Russian tactical weapons.
But Obama is still faced with the age-old question of targeting America's strategic weapons. Will American missiles be aimed at Moscow or Beijing—or Tehran? No, cities are off-limits. But even if the targets are military forces, millions would still die. Obama is still pondering the dilemma; the matter is said by administration officials to be under secret review.
Opinion Pieces:
To battle Wall Street, Obama should channel Teddy Roosevelt
By Simon Johnson and James Kwak
In late February 1902, J.P. Morgan, the leading financier of his day, went to the White House to meet with President Theodore Roosevelt and Attorney General Philander Knox. The government had just announced an antitrust suit -- the first of its kind -- against Morgan's recently formed railroad monopoly, Northern Securities, and this was a tense moment for the stock market. Morgan argued strongly that his industrial trusts were essential to American prosperity and competitiveness.
The banker wanted a deal. "If we have done anything wrong, send your man to my man and they can fix it up," he offered. But the president was blunt: "That can't be done." And Knox succinctly summarized Roosevelt's philosophy. "We don't want to fix it up," he told Morgan, "we want to stop it."
Just over a century later, on March 27, 2009, 13 bankers were summoned to the White House. The global financial system was verging on collapse, in no small measure because of the bankers' concentrated power and their manifest inability to manage the risks of their "financial innovation." Banking had to be rescued -- no modern economy can function without credit, of course -- and only the Obama administration had the power to save the day.
But instead of specific new regulations or changes in the way they operate -- or even any constraints on their power -- what did these 13 bankers find waiting for them? On this day and in the months that followed, the administration provided generous expressions of unconditional financial and moral support, both explicit and implicit, along with gentle and nonbinding admonitions.
The headline quote from President Obama sounded tough: "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks," he told the meeting. But the reality was as mild as it could be: All 13 bankers, no matter how discredited, kept their jobs, their salaries, their bonuses, their pensions, their staff and, most remarkable given the near-complete breakdown of governance, even their boards of directors. Our leading bankers were saved by the generosity and magnanimity of our president.
Since that meeting, the country has seen no discernible changes in the financial management and incentive systems that for 30 years have given Wall Street the benefits of the upside and Main Street the costs of the downside. And politically, our financial titans have bitterly opposed the mild reforms that the Obama administration eventually proposed. Even Citi and Bank of America, which essentially spent 2009 as wards of the state, have engaged in egregious lobbying.
There is no way that Teddy Roosevelt would have stood for this. He saw finance and economics through the lens of political power. In his book, it did not matter how important you were, or claimed to be, to the economy. If you were too powerful, and if your actions were hurting other people in the economy, Roosevelt wanted to take you on -- and he instructed his lawyers accordingly.
Roosevelt did not launch the antitrust movement by gently tugging on some low-hanging fruit. He took on J.P. Morgan, the central figure in the burgeoning American financial system, and he won (though just barely, with the Supreme Court voting 5 to 4 to dissolve Northern Securities). And after many twists and turns, the new consensus regarding acceptable business practices led to the breakup of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil -- arguably the most powerful company in U.S. history to that date.
Of course, Roosevelt did have the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act on his side. But before 1902, that law had never been used against an industrial trust, and precedent suggested that there was no legal basis for reining in Morgan's ventures. Roosevelt's audacious move seemed against the odds, and it was very much against the advice of top figures in his Republican Party.
In the spring of 2009, Obama and his senior advisers did not seem terribly troubled by the dangerous concentration of power, wealth and hubris on Wall Street. The president thought it reasonable to find a way forward through amicable accommodation, assuming that Big Finance really could change. Yet, in memoirs and public statements, the bankers repeatedly submit their defense: The system -- the mechanics and incentives of Wall Street -- made them do it. Unfortunately, Wall Street and its intimate connections to Washington have not become any safer for the American economy since this crisis began.
In fact, the latest boom-bust-bailout cycle probably worsened matters. We can argue whether, before September 2008, the people running huge financial firms really thought they were "too big to fail." Lehman, after all, did go bankrupt; Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs were rescued at the eleventh hour. But today, who thinks Goldman could fail?
In the moment of most intense crisis, Goldman became a bank holding company, subject to the supervision of the Federal Reserve and able to borrow from the Fed's official "discount window" -- effectively gaining government support. Yet today the firm is also allowed to carry out essentially the same activities (including securities and foreign-exchange trading, as well as real-estate-related transactions) as it did prior to the meltdown of 2008, when there was supposedly no government backing.
If you were exempt from paying speeding tickets, no matter how fast you drove, what would you do? Perhaps, immediately after observing a horrific crash or having a near-death experience, you would be more careful. But soon you would feel the need to get somewhere quickly. And you might even think that your special legal status merely reflected your advanced skills. How long until the next big accident?
Since Democrats lost the special Senate election in Massachusetts in January, the president has shown some new fire. In a major potential course correction, he proposed the "Volcker Rule," named after former Fed chairman and current Obama adviser Paul Volcker, which would constrain the risk-taking and the size of the largest U.S. banks. The move blind-sided Wall Street. In the sound bite of Jan. 21, Obama sounded just like Teddy: "If these folks want a fight," he said, "it's a fight I'm ready to have."
It is now time for that fight. Senate Democrats have proposed a financial overhaul that includes the Volcker Rule, and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that passing regulatory reform by late May is realistic. But to make progress in this legislative cycle, the president needs to go all in, as he did with health-care reform. The potential political message here is powerful: If opponents of reform think they are "too big to fail," then we will prove them wrong.
It doesn't help that Wall Street has vast amounts of cash to spend on lobbying and political ads. Yet, if framed correctly, the reform message cuts across the political spectrum. If there is one thing that the left and the right agree upon, it is that a "get out of jail free" card distorts the free market. Massive banks have access to cheaper financing because the credit markets understand that the government stands behind them. This is unfair competition, pure and simple.
Will the administration stand up and fight now, before we have another crisis? Surely this is what Theodore Roosevelt would have done. He liked to act preemptively; when he saw excessive power, he took it on, creating his own moments of political opportunity.
Of course, there is always the other Roosevelt. When FDR took power in March 1933, he took aim at the banks. As historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote in "The Coming of the New Deal" -- "No business was more proud and powerful than the bankers; none was more persuaded of its own rectitude; none more accustomed to respectful consultation by government officials. To be attacked as antisocial was bewildering; to be excluded from the formation of public policy was beyond endurance."
By the mid-1930s, Franklin Roosevelt had become skeptical of powerful financiers, but he was only able to translate those feelings into policy after a major global depression. Obama shouldn't wait for another one before pushing for the changes that matter.
Do informed voters make better choices? Not necessarily.
Knowledge is power -- except maybe when it comes to voting on ballot initiatives. Then it doesn't seem to matter so much.
That's the conclusion of an intriguing new study, "The Dilemma of Direct Democracy," by researchers Craig Burnett of the University of California at San Diego and Elizabeth Garrett and Matthew McCubbins of the University of Southern California. In exit polls after the 2008 election, they asked 1,002 voters in San Diego how they had voted on Proposition 7 -- a measure that would have required public utilities to generate at least half their energy from renewable sources by 2025. They also asked about the basic facts of the initiative, whether in general voters preferred that utilities produce more renewable energy and whether they knew if gas or electric companies had opposed or supported the initiative.
"Surprisingly, we discover that knowledge does not matter," the authors write. Regardless of whether voters were familiar with the facts of the initiative or knew the utility companies' positions, they tended to cast their votes in a manner consistent with their own underlying preferences. "We find no support for the expectation that better-informed voters . . . are more likely to make reasoned decisions than those who are, by our measure, uninformed," the researchers write.
Burnett, Garret and McCubbins nonetheless argue that, in a well-functioning democracy, voters should understand the issues on the ballot so that they can be confident they're translating their preferences into reasoned decisions. After all, about a third of those voting "yes" did so against their stated preference, and about 14 percent of those voting "no" did the same. So the authors propose offering voters more information at the "point of sale," i.e., on the ballot itself, and removing the responsibility of writing the ballot titles and summaries from political officials to a bipartisan commission.
Ironically, the only fact in the researcher's poll questions that was clearly stated on the ballot -- that half the energy generated would need to come from renewable sources by 2025 -- was the one that fewest voters (16.9 percent) knew.
The proposition lost, 65 percent to 35 percent.
It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, It’s Obama!
By FRANK RICH
NOT since Clark Kent changed in a phone booth has there been an instant image makeover to match Barack Obama’s in the aftermath of his health care victory. “He went from Jimmy Carter to F.D.R. in just a fortnight,” said one of the “Game Change” authors, Mark Halperin, on MSNBC. “Look at the steam in the man’s stride!” exclaimed Chris Matthews. “Is it just me, or does Barack Obama seem different since health care passed?” wrote Peter Beinart in The Daily Beast, which, like The Financial Times, ran an illustration portraying the gangly president as a newly bulked-up Superman.
What a difference winning makes — especially in America. Whatever did (or didn’t) get into Obama’s Wheaties, this much is certain: No one is talking about the clout of Scott Brown or Rahm Emanuel any more.
But has the man really changed — or is it just us? Fifteen months after arriving at the White House, Obama remains by far the most popular national politician in the country, even with a sub-50 percent approval rating. And yet he’s also the most enigmatic. While he is in our face more than any other figure in the world, we still aren’t entirely sure what to make of him.
Depending on where you stand — or the given day — he is either an overintellectual, professorial wuss or a ruthless Chicago machine pol rivaling the original Boss Daley. He is either a socialist redistributing wealth to the undeserving poor or a tool of Wall Street’s Goldman Sachs elite. He is a terrorist-coddling, A.C.L.U.-tilting lawyer or a closet Cheneyite upholding the worst excesses of the Bush administration’s end run on the Constitution. He is a lightweight celebrity who’s clueless without a teleprompter or a Machiavellian mastermind who has ingeniously forged his Hawaiian birth certificate, covered up his ties to Islamic radicals and bamboozled the entire mainstream press. He is the reincarnation of J.F.K., L.B.J., F.D.R., Reagan, Hitler, Stalin, Adlai Stevenson or Nelson Mandela. (Funny how few people compared George W. Bush to anyone but Hitler and his parents.)
No wonder that eight major new Obama books are arriving in the coming months, as Howard Kurtz reported in The Washington Post last week. And that’s just counting those by real authors, like Bob Woodward and Jonathan Alter, not the countless anti-Obama diatribes. There’s a bottomless market for these volumes not just because their protagonist remains popular but also because we keep hoping that the Obama puzzle might be cracked once and for all, like the Da Vinci Code.
The first of these books, out this week, is full of intriguing clues. Titled “The Bridge” and written by David Remnick, the editor of The New Yorker, it portrays Obama as fairly steady in his blend of liberal and centrist views, however much they (like everyone else’s) may have evolved over decades. Even his cultural tastes combined the progressive with the cautious. In the apartment he shared with a roommate at Occidental College, the playlist at late-night parties ran the gamut from Bob Marley and the Talking Heads to “that not-so-great soft Grover Washington stuff,” a friend recalls with some disdain.
If Obama’s belief system was fairly consistent, his public persona was not. Remnick returns repeatedly to the notion that Obama is a “shape-shifter,” with a remarkable ability to come across differently to disparate constituencies. Some of that reflects his agility at shifting rhetorical gears when, say, speaking to a living-room gathering on Chicago’s Near North Side or at a black church — a talent not unknown to some white politicians, starting with Bill Clinton. But much of this has less to do with Obama’s performance style than with how various audiences respond to his complex, hard-to-pigeonhole poly-racial-cultural-geographical identity. As far back as 2004 — when Obama was still in the Illinois Senate — a writer at The Chicago Tribune, Don Terry, framed what remains the prevailing Obama takeaway to this day. “He’s a Rorschach test,” Terry wrote. “What you see is what you want to see.”
Last week, after I wrote about the role race plays in some of the apocalyptic right-wing hysteria about the health care bill, a friend who is a prominent liberal Obama supporter sent me an e-mail flipping my point. He theorized that race also plays a role in “the often angry and intemperate talk” he has been hearing from “left-liberal friends for the past many months about what a failure and a disappointment” the president has been. In his view, “Obama never said anything, while running, to give anyone the idea” that he was other than a “deliberate, compromise-seeking bipartisan moderate.” My friend wondered if white liberals who voted for Obama expected a “sweeping Republicans-be-damned kind of agenda” in part — and he emphasized “in part!” — because “they expect a black guy to be intemperate, impetuous, impatient” rather than “measured, deliberate, patient.”
That was one provocative expansion of Obama-as-Rorschach test I hadn’t encountered before, and I guess anything is possible, particularly when it involves race in America. But what is unquestionably true is my friend’s underlying premise — that the Obama we see now is generally consistent with the one he presented in the 2008 campaign. Many, if not all, of the positions that have angered liberals since he entered the White House line up with his positions then, including his stubborn and futile faith in the prospect of bipartisanship in Washington.
When the 2008 Obama called Afghanistan an essential war and vowed to take out terrorist havens in Pakistan, he wasn’t just posturing to prove he was as hawkish as Hillary Clinton — which is what some chose to hear. Though he nominally supported a public option as a plank of health care reform, it was not a high priority and he rarely mentioned it, according to a review of his campaign speeches, interviews and debates by Sam Stein of The Huffington Post. Obama never said anything to suggest that he was interested in economic interventionism as bold as, say, the potential nationalization of failing banks. He was unambiguous in his professed opposition to same-sex marriage and largely silent on gun control. And as Jake Tapper of ABC News chronicled last week, Obama had even opened the door to offshore oil drilling in the weeks before Election Day.
It’s not just the Tea Party right or some on the liberal left who see only the Obama they want to see. This phenomenon extends to moderate Republicans who refuse to believe that Obama agrees with them even when he does. Susan Collins, the senator from Maine, reacted to the news of the Christmas Day bomber with an over-the-top outburst accusing Obama of being soft on terrorism. Though Obama’s education reforms have increased Pell grants and nettled one liberal constituency, teachers’ unions, Lamar Alexander, the supposedly temperate senator from Tennessee, has characterized the president as pushing “a Soviet-style, European, and even Asian higher-education model where the government manages everything.” Mitt Romney has now started a full-tilt campaign to angrily challenge the indisputable reality that “Obamacare” resembles his own health care reform package in Massachusetts.
What’s clear is that Obama largely remains a fixed point even while the rest of us keep wildly revising our judgments, whether looking at him through the prism of partisan politics, race, media melodrama or any other we choose. It’s our recession-tossed country, not his presidency, that is rocked by violent mood swings.
That doesn’t mean his presidency will be successful. Being consistent is not the same as being a forceful leader. If there’s been an overarching, nonideological failing so far in Obama, it’s been his execution of the levers of power. Whether in articulating his health care bottom line, or closing Guantánamo Bay, or moving forward on repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” he has often seemed tardy or unfocused, at times missing deadlines he has set himself. The narrative that might link his presidential policies into a clear, mobilizing vision for the country remains murky, which in turn facilitates the caricature of his views from all sides.
But in the immediate aftermath of his health care victory, at least, there does seem to be real, not imagined, change in Obama’s management modus operandi. Whether challenging Karzai and Bibi, or pushing through 15 recess appointments, or taunting those who would repeal the health care law to “go for it,” this is a far more energized executive than the sometimes tentative technocrat we’ve often seen thus far. The pace has picked up — if not to faster-than-a-speeding-bullet Superman velocity, then at least as much as the inherent sclerosis of Washington will allow.
And not a moment too soon. The speed with which Obama navigates out of the recession, as measured by new jobs and serious financial reform, remains by far the most determinative factor in how he, his party and, most of all, the country will fare in the fractious year of 2010. If he succeeds in that all-important challenge — or, for that matter, if he fails — the enigmatic, Rorschach-test phase of Obama’s still young relationship to the American people may rapidly draw to a close. It will be the moment of clarity that allows us to at last judge him, as we should all presidents, on what he’s actually done rather than on who we imagine he is.
Polls:
President Obama Job Approval
Approve
47.5
Disapprove
46.1
Spread +1.4
Congressional Job Approval
Approve
18.5
Disapprove
76.2
Spread -57.7
Generic Congressional Vote
Republicans
45.6
Democrats
43.4
Republicans +2.2
Direction of Country
Right Direction
34.4
Wrong Track
59.6
Spread -25.2
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Congressional Newsletter
This edition of our newsletter brings in to view Florida's 8th district, containing Walt Disney World, Universal Studios, and Sea World. This is another district represented by a Freshman Democrat, Alan Grayson, who replaced a long-time incumbent Republican in 2008. Republicans are targeting this district this cycle as a good of a pick-up. Full Analysis below.
FLORIDA’S 8TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Background (from CQPolitics):
“One of Florida’s few landlocked districts, the 8th is powered by the presence of Walt Disney World, Sea World and Universal Studios’ resort in the Orlando area. The district surrounds western Orlando and includes upscale parts of the region, much of the city’s downtown area, and the Walt Disney World complex. It then pushes north to take in parts of Lake and Marion counties.
“Local tourism relies on out-of-state visitors and is vulnerable to economic slowdowns, but the industry is the 8th’s undisputed economic leader. The local economy has broadened to include a technology sector headed by Oracle and defense and aerospace contractor Lockheed Martin. New health care and medical research facilities in the southern part of the district may help insulate the 8th.
“Economic growth and redevelopment of downtown Orlando brought office parks and upscale condominiums to the city. A housing market collapse hurt the more well-to-do areas of the district, but a declining cost of living and plummeting home values have made once out-of-reach areas available for some of the tourism-based workforce.
“Residents of suburban Orange County tend to back Republicans on social and economic issues. The 8th’s population here is younger, wealthier and more educated than in most Florida districts, and the county’s Hispanic population, which is mostly of Democratic-leaning Puerto Rican heritage, has put the county within political reach of Democratic candidates. Barack Obama won 52 percent of the district’s presidential vote in 2008.”[1]
Electoral History & the 2010 Elections
In 2008, Representative Alan Grayson (D) unseated four-term incumbent Ric Keller (R) with a four-percentage point lead, or about 3,000 votes.[2] He is well-known for being outspoken about his beliefs – one day during the health care debate he berated the Republican Party for his perception of their health care policy: “don’t get sick,” and if you do get sick, “die quickly.”
Republicans are targeting this district for the 2010 Midterm elections, hoping to win it back for their party, especially because they argue he is too liberal for a historically Republican district. Republicans and other conservatives running include:
Kurt Kelly (R) – current Florida State Representative
Bruce O’Donoghue (R) – currently serves on the 9th Circuit Judicial Nominating Commission
Todd Long (R) – Lawyer who almost won the Republican primary in 2007
Dan Fanelli – Former Naval Aviator and Tea Party participant
Ken Miller – Physician
Patricia Sullivan – Tea Party participant
Grayson has raised over $2.3 million for his campaign
Bibliography
[1] “District Information – Politics in America District Profile” (CQPolitics) – http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-2010-FL-08
[2] “Florida – 8th District” - http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-2010-FL-08
FLORIDA’S 8TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Background (from CQPolitics):
“One of Florida’s few landlocked districts, the 8th is powered by the presence of Walt Disney World, Sea World and Universal Studios’ resort in the Orlando area. The district surrounds western Orlando and includes upscale parts of the region, much of the city’s downtown area, and the Walt Disney World complex. It then pushes north to take in parts of Lake and Marion counties.
“Local tourism relies on out-of-state visitors and is vulnerable to economic slowdowns, but the industry is the 8th’s undisputed economic leader. The local economy has broadened to include a technology sector headed by Oracle and defense and aerospace contractor Lockheed Martin. New health care and medical research facilities in the southern part of the district may help insulate the 8th.
“Economic growth and redevelopment of downtown Orlando brought office parks and upscale condominiums to the city. A housing market collapse hurt the more well-to-do areas of the district, but a declining cost of living and plummeting home values have made once out-of-reach areas available for some of the tourism-based workforce.
“Residents of suburban Orange County tend to back Republicans on social and economic issues. The 8th’s population here is younger, wealthier and more educated than in most Florida districts, and the county’s Hispanic population, which is mostly of Democratic-leaning Puerto Rican heritage, has put the county within political reach of Democratic candidates. Barack Obama won 52 percent of the district’s presidential vote in 2008.”[1]
Electoral History & the 2010 Elections
In 2008, Representative Alan Grayson (D) unseated four-term incumbent Ric Keller (R) with a four-percentage point lead, or about 3,000 votes.[2] He is well-known for being outspoken about his beliefs – one day during the health care debate he berated the Republican Party for his perception of their health care policy: “don’t get sick,” and if you do get sick, “die quickly.”
Republicans are targeting this district for the 2010 Midterm elections, hoping to win it back for their party, especially because they argue he is too liberal for a historically Republican district. Republicans and other conservatives running include:
Kurt Kelly (R) – current Florida State Representative
Bruce O’Donoghue (R) – currently serves on the 9th Circuit Judicial Nominating Commission
Todd Long (R) – Lawyer who almost won the Republican primary in 2007
Dan Fanelli – Former Naval Aviator and Tea Party participant
Ken Miller – Physician
Patricia Sullivan – Tea Party participant
Grayson has raised over $2.3 million for his campaign
Bibliography
[1] “District Information – Politics in America District Profile” (CQPolitics) – http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-2010-FL-08
[2] “Florida – 8th District” - http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-2010-FL-08
American Politics Newsletter 3/29/2010
This edition of the American Politics Newsletter includes reaction to the health care bill, and it's impact on the 2010 midterm elections, as well as current opinions on Obama's meeting with President Sarkozy, and the current state of Afghanistan.
American Politics:
Obama to sign health-care 'fixes' bill Tuesday in Alexandria
By Anne E. Kornblut President Obama will sign legislation making fixes to his sweeping health care bill -- and enacting sweeping changes to higher education financing -- at a ceremony in Alexandria next week, the White House announced Friday.
Obama's Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, as the bill is known, will be signed into law on Tuesday morning at Northern Virginia Community College.
While the legislation includes changes that House Democrats insisted upon before passing the Senate bill, the administration is eager to emphasize the education components, which include making it easier to repay student loans and significantly more funding for Pell Grants.
In its announcement about the event, the White House declared that the bill delivered a "significant down payment on the president's ambitious agenda to make higher education more affordable and help more Americans earn a college degree."
By Anne E. Kornblut March 26, 2010; 5:44 PM ET
In Partisan Battle, Clashes Over Health Lawsuits
By KEVIN SACK
ATLANTA — Reflecting the bitter partisan divide over health care, governors in at least six states are at war with attorneys general from the other political party about whether to join litigation challenging the new federal health insurance mandate.
In four states — Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Washington — Democratic governors are criticizing Republican attorneys general for joining the lawsuit over their objections. On Friday, those governors wrote to the federal attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., to offer their assistance in defending the new law against the litigation filed by their own states.
In Georgia and Mississippi, meanwhile, Republican governors are chafing at the reluctance of Democratic attorneys general to join the lawsuit on their behalf. They are exploring ways to circumvent their states’ top legal officers and join the case anyway.
The disputes carry a heavy overlay of election-year politics. Not only are Democrats and Republicans supporting the positions of their national parties, but three of the attorneys general are running to succeed the governors they are battling, and a fourth is considering a race in 2012. Each faces a primary that requires appealing to the party base.
Here in Georgia, Attorney General Thurbert E. Baker is competing in a crowded field for the Democratic nomination for governor. On Wednesday, he formally declined Gov. Sonny Perdue’s request that the state join the lawsuit, saying it had “no legal merit.”
“I concluded that any litigation would fail,” Mr. Baker said in an interview, “and that it would cost the taxpayers of Georgia significant amounts of hard-earned taxpayer dollars.”
Mr. Baker cited constitutional provisions that give federal laws supremacy over state actions. “This is not a tough legal question,” he said.
Mr. Perdue, a Republican who will leave office in January because of term limits, announced Thursday that he would deputize a special attorney general to file a lawsuit for the state. Mr. Baker does not dispute the governor’s authority to do so.
Mr. Perdue’s spokesman, Bert Brantley, said that many lawyers had volunteered to handle the case pro bono and that mail and calls from constituents were running heavily against the new law.
Twelve attorneys general, all but one of them Republican, joined a lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court in Florida by Bill McCollum, a Republican attorney general who is running for governor. The attorney general of Virginia, also a Republican, has filed a separate challenge.
Their primary claim is that the Democratic-controlled Congress and President Obama exceeded their constitutional authority in enacting legislation last week that will eventually require most Americans to obtain health insurance. Mr. McCollum called the mandate, which takes effect in 2014, “an unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of the American people.”
Attorneys general are charged with representing the governor and executive branch agencies, but also may initiate and intervene in litigation in the interest of the citizenry. It is not uncommon, given that governors and attorneys general are elected independently and can be from opposing parties, that they clash over questions of authority.
In Michigan, Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm, a Democrat who cannot run again this year because of term limits, wrote a blistering letter last week to Attorney General Mike Cox, a Republican who announced on his Web site that “Michigan has joined” the health care lawsuit.
Ms. Granholm, a former attorney general, chastised Mr. Cox for “speaking for the State of Michigan” and told him his stand was “directly contrary to the position of this administration.”
She questioned whether he had the constitutional authority to supersede her own. And she directed him, as her lawyer, to assist in the defense of the case, asking his office in essence to work against itself. Mr. Cox, who is running in a competitive primary to succeed Ms. Granholm, said he was obligated to do so.
“I’m perfectly willing to let her exercise her option of being wrong and being represented while she does so,” Mr. Cox said. “The reality is that the federal court recognizes the attorney general as the voice of the state in federal litigation.”
The thrust and parry has been much the same in Pennsylvania. Gov. Edward G. Rendell, a Democrat who is also barred from seeking re-election this year because of term limits, urged Attorney General Tom Corbett to withdraw from the lawsuit. “It’s hard to imagine that you take this action on behalf of those who may be sick or have a chronic illness but are uninsured,” Mr. Rendell wrote to Mr. Corbett, the leading Republican running to replace him.
Democrats who control of the State House of Representatives threatened to slash Mr. Corbett’s budget, but the Republicans in charge of the State Senate said they would not let that happen.
In Washington, Gov. Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, said she was open to using the state budget process to block Attorney General Rob McKenna, a Republican, from spending money on the suit.
“I don’t know who he represents,” Ms. Gregoire said at a news conference last week. “He doesn’t represent me.”
Midterms pose major challenge for Obama's grass-roots political organization
By Amy GardnerWashington Post Staff Writer
TUCSON -- President Obama's strategy for helping Democrats win the midterm elections was in full view at a former dance studio here more than a week ago as rotating teams of volunteers made thousands of calls about health care to residents of Arizona's 8th Congressional District.
The effort was run by Organizing for America (OFA), the president's grass-roots political organization, and the volunteers were urging Obama voters to contact Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) and express support for legislation to overhaul health care. In the end, OFA made 40,000 calls in the district, and Giffords, despite heavy targeting from opponents, voted yes.
Whether OFA, now a project of the Democratic National Committee, can sustain that success and apply it to the fall elections is uncertain. It is one thing to rally supporters behind Obama's signature domestic policy initiative. But it's something else entirely to draw that level of enthusiasm for an election in which he won't even be on the ballot.
"Getting health care passed is huge," said Jeremy Bird, OFA's deputy director, who was in Arizona recently rallying volunteers. "But we have a lot of work to do to make sure we maintain control of the House and Senate."
Health-care battle
Ina Smalzer, 65, a retiree, was one of the volunteers making calls from the headquarters of the Pima County Democratic Party. Squinting periodically at the tiny keypad of her personal cellphone, Smalzer only loosely followed the provided script, which directed her to urge people to attend an upcoming rally, call Giffords's office and write letters to the local newspaper.
"The paper today indicated that she's leaning toward a yes," Smalzer spoke clearly over the din in the room, her phone pressed to one ear and a finger plugging the other. "But it's critical that we get her vote, and because of that, we are going to have a rally so she knows that her constituents want her to vote yes." Smalzer paused, listening. "Um, we can't get the message across loud enough or often enough. We can't take a chance."
About 200 activists rallied at Giffords's office two days before last Sunday's vote, part of OFA's final 10-day push. According to organizers, more than 500,000 calls were placed to Congress, more than 1,200 rallies were held nationwide, more than 300,000 letters were mailed, and more than 150,000 text messages were sent.
C.J. Karamargin, an aide to Giffords in her Tucson office, said the number of calls from constituents was about evenly split between those for and against the health-care bill. But OFA organizers said that counts as a victory when the public -- and many in Congress -- believed that the voices against the legislation were louder.
"There was so much misinformation about the bill," said Giffords, who estimated that national opponents, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, spent about $300,000 on television ads in her district in the final days before the vote.
"If you watch 10 of these ads in the last day when you're trying to watch the basketball game, and a live person calls you and is willing to talk to you about this bill -- that makes a difference," Giffords said.
Bird, OFA's deputy director, said the perception that Obama's base had withered is a "D.C. bubble thing." But he acknowledged that the decibel level of the opposition has succeeded at times in drowning out the president's message.
Rebuilding the brand
Organizing for America came into existence shortly after Obama's inauguration with the goal of transforming the campaign's fabled grass-roots operation into a permanent structure that could mobilize 13 million supporters for any political or policy cause with a keystroke.
OFA began as a bare-bones operation involving two people within the DNC, but by mid-2009, it began building a national organization in preparation for the health-care debate. That effort was overshadowed, however, by opponents of the health-care bill, who made headlines with angry displays at town-hall meetings across the country.
It's still not clear that the breadth of Obama supporters from the presidential campaign is fully engaged today. The health-care issue drew out large numbers of older volunteers as part of a "Senior to Senior" effort that OFA staged across the country, matching the demographics of its current crop of volunteers with its target audience.
"I believe very strongly in health care," Smalzer said. "I thought it was critical, vital, that it be passed. And I felt I needed to do something."
If OFA is to have an impact on the midterms, it must elicit similar commitment from people who were not so engaged on the health-care issue. Democrats face a particularly difficult election season because of the state of the economy, mistrust of Obama's agenda and an energized opposition. Then there is the challenge of adapting a grass-roots organization centered on the popularity of one man to hundreds of congressional campaigns across the country.
"We don't have the brand we had in 2008, when we elected the first African American president," said Ashley Piñedo, OFA's regional field director for the Phoenix area.
There may be no better example of that challenge than the electoral defeats Democrats have suffered since Obama took office. First were the gubernatorial races last year in New Jersey and Virginia. Most stinging of all for Obama supporters was the election of Republican Scott Brown on Jan. 19 to the Senate seat long held by Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who died Aug. 25. If OFA could not rally its base to ensure that the seat once held by the nation's most ardent proponent of health-care reform remained in Democratic hands, how can it hope to cut its losses this fall? It is a view that weighs heavily on the minds of Obama supporters.
"Did OFA not have any staffers in Massachusetts until January?" asked Kathy Killeen, a Democratic organizer from Green Valley, a suburb of Tucson, at a strategy session with state organizers this month. "From our perspective, you didn't have a very good result. You lost an election, and you waited too long to show up."
Mapping out a strategy
Supporters have other misgivings about OFA and its prospects as well, but they say they are more energized than they have been in months. On a warm evening at OFA's Arizona headquarters in Phoenix this month, about 60 supporters gathered for a strategy session to map out the future of the local organization. It was one of several hundred such sessions held across the nation, intended to re-engage the base from 2008.
The gathering had the feel of a political campaign, a pep rally for volunteers complete with posters on the walls ("Respect. Empower. Include.") and sign-up sheets on the tables. A state director, regional directors and community organizers were on hand to urge action with PowerPoint slides, breakout sessions and rousing speeches about keeping alive the hope they all felt in 2008.
They touted Obama's accomplishments: the economic stimulus bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court justice.
They showed how many voters they must reach this year to raise turnout and reverse the trend line of midterm election results. Only 42 percent of first-time voters in 2004 returned to the polling booth in 2006. There were 437,000 first-time voters in Arizona in 2008, a group that is young and heavily Latino. At least 80,000 of them are unlikely to vote without contact from OFA, organizers say.
"If we only focus on [past] midterm voters this year, Democrats will lose," said Jessica Jones, OFA's Arizona director.
They brainstormed how to reach those voters. And there was a mix of excitement and frustration about Obama's path thus far.
"There have been too many changes, too many compromises to the promises of President Obama," said Gurpreet Brar, 33, a researcher from Glendale.
"We have allowed the other side to control the conversation," said Phoenix resident Terry Araman, who works at a homeless shelter.
"OFA was the cavalry that came in and saved the day!" said Michael Popovich, a teacher and OFA community organizer.
It remains to be seen whether the cavalry can ride again.
Foreign Policy:
In Afghanistan, Obama Presses Karzai to Fight Corruption
By HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON — President Obama made an unannounced visit to Afghanistan on Sunday, his first as commander in chief to the site of the war he inherited and has stamped as his own.
Air Force One landed at nighttime at Bagram Air Base after a 13-hour nonstop flight for a visit shrouded in secrecy for security reasons; Mr. Obama quickly boarded a helicopter for the trip to Kabul, landing at the presidential palace for talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.
While Mr. Obama noted that military progress has been made in Afghanistan, he added, pointedly, that “we also want to continue to make progress on the civilian process,” mentioning several areas, including governance, anti-corruption and the rule of law.
His remarks came as he stood next to Mr. Karzai at the presidential palace after their meeting. Mr. Karzai is expected to visit Washington in May for additional talks.
In his comments, Mr. Karzai promised that his country “would move forward into the future” to eventually take over its own security, and he thanked Mr. Obama for the American intervention in his country, The Associated Press reported.
White House officials said before the meeting that Mr. Obama planned to press Mr. Karzai on a number of concerns, in particular the failure of Mr. Karzai to make good on promises he made to the international community on anti-corruption, governance and even reintegration with certain reconcilable members of the Taliban insurgency.
Gen. James L. Jones, the National Security Adviser, told reporters aboard the flight to Bagram that Mr. Obama would try to make Mr. Karzai “understand that in his second term, there are certain things that have not been paid attention to, almost since day one.” General Jones said those things included “a merit-based system for appointment of key government officials, battling corruption, taking the fight to the narco-traffickers,” which, he said, “provides a lot of the economic engine for the insurgents.”
At the presidential palace, Mr. Obama and Mr. Karzai walked and chatted along a red carpet as they made their way to an Afghan color guard, where the national anthems of both countries were played, in a welcoming ceremony that lasted 10 minutes.
White House officials disclosed no information about the trip until Mr. Obama’s plane had landed in Afghanistan, and had even gone so far as to inform reporters that the president would be spending the weekend at Camp David with his family. In fact, Mr. Obama’s trip occurred during the Afghan night, and he was already headed back to Washington.
Besides General Jones, Mr. Obama was accompanied by his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and several White House and Defense officials.
Mr. Obama also met with some of the tens of thousands of American troops who have been sent to Afghanistan since he took office. His visit with the troops is particularly significant because it comes at the same time that military officials report that the number of American troops killed in Afghanistan has roughly doubled in the first three months of 2010, compared to the same period last year.
The number of soldiers wounded in combat has also spiked dramatically. Military officials have warned that casualties are likely to continue to rise sharply as the Pentagon completes the deployment of another 30,000 soldiers, per Afghanistan strategy announced by Mr. Obama back in November. The reason for the spike, military officials said, is because American forces are aggressively seeking out Taliban insurgents in the country’s population centers, and are planning a major operation in the Kandahar, the spiritual home of the Taliban.
Mr. Obama’s trip to Afghanistan caps a high-profile week in which the president coupled a singular domestic policy victory — the signing of a health reform bill — with the foreign policy achievement: reaching an arms control agreement with Russia in which the two nuclear powers agreed to slash their nuclear arsenals to the lowest levels in half a century.
The Afghanistan trip also shows the president pivoting to national security concerns now that he has gotten the bulk of the health care fight behind him. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France is to visit Mr. Obama this week in Washington, and Mr. Obama will be hosting a nuclear nonproliferation summit in Washington next month.
The Palm Sunday visit to American combat troops by their commander in chief is meant, in part, to project the image of an American president keeping on top of several issues at once.
At the same time, though, Mr. Obama’s visit to Afghanistan as commander in chief has been a long time coming. While he visited troops at Camp Victory, Iraq, three months after he was inaugurated, the White House has held off on a presidential visit to Afghanistan as Mr. Obama went through a rigorous months-long review of Afghanistan strategy, and as that country endured the twists and turns of a disputed election.
Even after Mr. Karzai was inaugurated and Mr. Obama announced that he would send an additional 30,000 American troops, Mr. Obama still put off a trip as he focused on his domestic priorities, including a health care bill.
Indeed, some members of the military have privately expressed concern that since announcing the Afghanistan troop increase, Mr. Obama has not talked much about the war there.
Mr. Obama appeared to be trying to address that on Sunday during his remarks with Mr. Karzai. “One of the main reasons I’m here is to just say thank you for the incredible efforts of our troops and our coalition partners,” he said. “They make tremendous sacrifices far away from home, and I want to make sure they know how proud their commander in chief is of them.”
Sarkozy, and France, Look to U.S. Visit
By BRIAN KNOWLTON
WASHINGTON — President Nicolas Sarkozy of France travels to the United States on Monday for a two-day trip designed to underscore his close cooperation with President Barack Obama on Afghanistan, Iran and other issues, and apparently to make a statement about their personal relationship.
The trip, culminating in a news conference Tuesday and then a private dinner at the White House, comes at a crucial time for both.
Mr. Obama has just scored two major victories — the passage of historic health-care legislation and agreement with Russia on a new strategic arms control treaty — and is heading into a period of heavy international engagement.
Mr. Sarkozy, for his part, has seen his popularity fade and his party suffer stinging defeats in regional elections. At the same time he is preparing for a crucial stint on the world stage as France takes leadership of both the Group of Eight and the Group of Twenty.
As the newspaper Le Parisien put it, “This meeting could not come at a better time” for Mr. Sarkozy.
The closeness of the Sarkozy-Obama relationship — and for that matter, of Mr. Obama with other European leaders — has been questioned, based on issues like Mr. Obama’s decision in February to skip an annual U.S.-European summit meeting.
But in an interview here last week with the International Herald Tribune and three French correspondents, the national security adviser, James L. Jones Jr., repeatedly rejected the notion of any strains.
He called Mr. Sarkozy a “very helpful and steadfast ally” on Iran and “a strong adviser and supporter on the Middle East.” If Mr. Sarkozy sometimes urges the American president to push harder in both areas, said the general, Mr. Obama appreciated the “honest exchange of views.”
General Jones, a former supreme allied commander in Europe, said that Mr. Obama had particularly appreciated Mr. Sarkozy’s decision to bring France back into NATO’s military wing and Paris’s “strong support” on Afghanistan.
The United States has been pressing its NATO allies to provide more military trainers for Afghanistan. French officials have been quoted as saying they will send no more, but General Jones appeared to leave open the possibility that Mr. Sarkozy would make such a gesture during the visit.
While the general acknowledged that as NATO commander he had known frustration over allied contributions in Afghanistan, he said that he had never seen better cooperation within NATO. “We’ve achieved a major breakthrough in how we think of Afghanistan and Pakistan,” he said, “and there is a new sense of energy that we can be successful.”
He played down two areas of friction. The announcement that France had agreed to sell four Mistral-class warships to Russia might once have raised American hackles. But General Jones seemed unperturbed. “It was not the subject of any serious bone of contention,” he said, adding that the United States, too, wanted better relations with Moscow.
Europeans were deeply unhappy when the Pentagon, while taking bids for a huge contract to supply aerial refueling tankers, changed the plane’s specifications in a way they interpreted as giving an advantage to the chief American bidder, Boeing, to the detriment of the European aerospace group EADS.
General Jones asserted that as a former director of Boeing he could not comment. But he said that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates had “assured the president that the Department of Defense wants the competition to be fair and equal for all parties.”
The presidents also are expected to discuss some differences: France wants the United States to institute tougher financial regulations and to undertake more resolute action on climate change.
Mr. Sarkozy is to open his trip with a speech Monday at Columbia University in New York. He then is to meet with the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon.
In Washington on Tuesday, he plans to meet with several senators before the presidents hold a late-afternoon news conference.
They are then to adjourn, with Michelle Obama and Carla Sarkozy, for a private dinner that French officials are calling “testimony to a particularly close friendship.”
Opinion Pieces:
Health-care overhaul begins nowBy Ezra Klein
As someone who has spent the past year tangled in the minutia of excise taxes and curve bending and subsidy levels, it is good to finally say this: With the passage of the reconciliation fixes, the health-care reform debate is finally over. But if you're thrilled to hear that, then I also have some bad news: Health-care reform itself is just beginning.
This bill marks an evolution, not a revolution, for our health-care system. Whether it proves the cornerstone of a better, fairer, more affordable system or simply another expansion of the federal welfare state has as much to do with what happens when the law is implemented as with what's written in the legislation.
The system will not change in a year. Even by 2014, when it is broadly implemented, life will not change for most people. This is not single-payer (though you wouldn't know it listening to the GOP) or the ambitious Wyden-Bennett reforms. Come 2019, about 10 percent of Americans will have a different insurance arrangement than they would have had without the bill. Most of us won't notice any difference.
But right around then, the system could go one of two ways. The key is the regulated insurance exchanges. They are where the bill's most transformative reforms happen: Risk-adjustment payments so insurers aren't penalized for having sicker customers, regulations so they can't discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, and transparency requirements so individuals can see the full cost of insurance plans and compare them based on quality and satisfaction measures.
But they're closed to most Americans.
At the beginning, the exchanges will be open to individuals and very small businesses. In fact, states can operate two exchanges: one for individuals, and one for small businesses, though why they would is beyond me. Either way, a large employer cannot simply buy its workers into the exchange. Nor is an employee of a large firm that offers health-care insurance allowed to buy in on her own.
There are two reasons for this, one good and one bad. The good: The bill's architects were worried that only employers with older and sicker workers would enter the exchanges at the beginning and that would overwhelm them; this way, the exchanges have time to get up and running before employers enter. The bad: The bill's architects were worried about letting employers change the coverage they offer workers.
In 2017, states can decide whether to let large employers into the exchanges. That's important: The exchanges are the bridge between the employer-based system we have -- where few know how much their insurance costs or have any choice about what kind to buy -- and the competitive system we need. But just because there is a bridge doesn't mean we'll walk over it. At this point, you can imagine two paths for health-care reform:
In one world, states wouldn't open the exchanges. The markets would remain limited to individuals and small businesses. Most of the participants are lower income and using subsidies. We'd stay in a tiered health-care system, in which the exchanges would join Medicaid as a place where those who can't afford coverage could get it and the employer market would remain the central organizing structure of the health-care system.
In another world, the states would open the exchanges. And in that world, they've been preparing to open the exchanges. That means they would run them efficiently and conscientiously. Also states would take advantage of the law's provision allowing them to partner with one another. An exchange run by Delaware and Pennsylvania and Ohio and Virginia is going to be a lot stronger and have a lot more competition among insurers than an exchange run by Delaware alone.
At that point, large employers, tired of administering their own health-care plans, would begin buying their workers into the exchanges. More customers would mean a more competitive market that has clear prices and quality measures and would create a virtuous cycle in which prices go down and quality goes up.
Does that sound hopelessly idyllic to you? Yeah, me too. But that's because we're used to the dispiriting mess that is the American health-care system. This rosy future is pretty much how things work in Switzerland and in the Netherlands, so it's certainly not impossible. You're really saying that the Swiss are better than us?
The legislation Obama signed into law last week doesn't promise sufficient reform, but it does lay down many of the necessary preconditions for it. It is an incremental bill with a comprehensive vision tucked inside. Tired as we all are, the work of realizing that vision starts now.
Pass the arms treaty
By John F. Kerry
A YEAR ago, President Obama threw his weight behind efforts to make the world safer from nuclear weapons. It is working. On April 8, he will sign a new arms control treaty with Russia that would cut the nuclear arsenals of both countries and reinforce America’s leadership on efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons.
A few weeks later, responsibility for reviewing the treaty will fall to the Senate. A two-thirds vote will be required to approve its ratification. This means Democrats and Republicans will have to support this treaty.
Skeptics will say this is poor timing for any measure that depends on bipartisan backing. The passage of health care reform over unified Republican opposition is only the latest evidence of the bitter divisions between the two parties. But it is incumbent upon my colleagues to break the partisan stalemate by considering this treaty on its merits.
The new agreement is the result of a year of hard-nosed negotiations. Even when the old treaty expired last December and some warned that immediate action was required, American negotiators were patient and fought to guarantee that no provisions would weaken our national security or restrain our ability to defend ourselves.The result will be significant reductions in the nuclear warheads and strategic delivery systems of both the United States and Russia, and a verification regime that insures Russia will keep its pledges. It builds on President Ronald Reagan’s maxim: “trust, but verify.’’
Senate approval would tell the world that the two countries with 95 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons are fulfilling their obligations to reduce their arsenals under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. In crafting the treaty, the administration listened to the concerns of the Senate. The final language does not tie our hands on missile defense, and the verification regime reflects the realities of our post-Cold War world. For the first time, we will count the number of actual warheads on Russian missiles.
Critics contend that any negotiated reduction in our nuclear weapons endangers our national security. From everything I have seen and heard, this treaty bolsters our security and merits our support.
No one expects a treaty with Russia to end the nuclear ambitions of countries like Iran and North Korea and terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda. But by signing this treaty, the president will change the global dynamic on non-proliferation and allow us to increase pressure on Iran to adhere to its commitment under the NPT not to develop nuclear weapons. Signing the treaty also will reflect progress in our relations with Russia. Since President Obama “reset’’ the relationship, the Russians have pledged to support diplomatic efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions and helped get supplies to US troops in Afghanistan. Uncertainties and differences remain between the two countries, but that should be seen as an argument for the treaty, not against it.
There is reason to hope for bipartisan support. Large majorities of Republicans and Democrats approved arms control agreements with Russia in 1992, 1996 and 2003. During the 2008 presidential campaign, both Obama and Senator John McCain agreed to put America on the path toward a world without nuclear weapons, a position endorsed by a bipartisan group of 17 of the last 24 secretaries of state and defense and national security advisers. Obama should bring this august group to the Rose Garden to demonstrate this new consensus to the public and the Senate.
In the coming weeks, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will conduct vigorous hearings that will probe every aspect of the treaty. We will hear from key officials from the current and past administrations. With the help of Senator Richard Lugar, the committee’s ranking Republican, I am sure we will achieve the necessary level of certainty to reassure our colleagues and the American people that this treaty will make our world safer.
American Politics:
Obama to sign health-care 'fixes' bill Tuesday in Alexandria
By Anne E. Kornblut President Obama will sign legislation making fixes to his sweeping health care bill -- and enacting sweeping changes to higher education financing -- at a ceremony in Alexandria next week, the White House announced Friday.
Obama's Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, as the bill is known, will be signed into law on Tuesday morning at Northern Virginia Community College.
While the legislation includes changes that House Democrats insisted upon before passing the Senate bill, the administration is eager to emphasize the education components, which include making it easier to repay student loans and significantly more funding for Pell Grants.
In its announcement about the event, the White House declared that the bill delivered a "significant down payment on the president's ambitious agenda to make higher education more affordable and help more Americans earn a college degree."
By Anne E. Kornblut March 26, 2010; 5:44 PM ET
In Partisan Battle, Clashes Over Health Lawsuits
By KEVIN SACK
ATLANTA — Reflecting the bitter partisan divide over health care, governors in at least six states are at war with attorneys general from the other political party about whether to join litigation challenging the new federal health insurance mandate.
In four states — Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Washington — Democratic governors are criticizing Republican attorneys general for joining the lawsuit over their objections. On Friday, those governors wrote to the federal attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., to offer their assistance in defending the new law against the litigation filed by their own states.
In Georgia and Mississippi, meanwhile, Republican governors are chafing at the reluctance of Democratic attorneys general to join the lawsuit on their behalf. They are exploring ways to circumvent their states’ top legal officers and join the case anyway.
The disputes carry a heavy overlay of election-year politics. Not only are Democrats and Republicans supporting the positions of their national parties, but three of the attorneys general are running to succeed the governors they are battling, and a fourth is considering a race in 2012. Each faces a primary that requires appealing to the party base.
Here in Georgia, Attorney General Thurbert E. Baker is competing in a crowded field for the Democratic nomination for governor. On Wednesday, he formally declined Gov. Sonny Perdue’s request that the state join the lawsuit, saying it had “no legal merit.”
“I concluded that any litigation would fail,” Mr. Baker said in an interview, “and that it would cost the taxpayers of Georgia significant amounts of hard-earned taxpayer dollars.”
Mr. Baker cited constitutional provisions that give federal laws supremacy over state actions. “This is not a tough legal question,” he said.
Mr. Perdue, a Republican who will leave office in January because of term limits, announced Thursday that he would deputize a special attorney general to file a lawsuit for the state. Mr. Baker does not dispute the governor’s authority to do so.
Mr. Perdue’s spokesman, Bert Brantley, said that many lawyers had volunteered to handle the case pro bono and that mail and calls from constituents were running heavily against the new law.
Twelve attorneys general, all but one of them Republican, joined a lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court in Florida by Bill McCollum, a Republican attorney general who is running for governor. The attorney general of Virginia, also a Republican, has filed a separate challenge.
Their primary claim is that the Democratic-controlled Congress and President Obama exceeded their constitutional authority in enacting legislation last week that will eventually require most Americans to obtain health insurance. Mr. McCollum called the mandate, which takes effect in 2014, “an unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of the American people.”
Attorneys general are charged with representing the governor and executive branch agencies, but also may initiate and intervene in litigation in the interest of the citizenry. It is not uncommon, given that governors and attorneys general are elected independently and can be from opposing parties, that they clash over questions of authority.
In Michigan, Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm, a Democrat who cannot run again this year because of term limits, wrote a blistering letter last week to Attorney General Mike Cox, a Republican who announced on his Web site that “Michigan has joined” the health care lawsuit.
Ms. Granholm, a former attorney general, chastised Mr. Cox for “speaking for the State of Michigan” and told him his stand was “directly contrary to the position of this administration.”
She questioned whether he had the constitutional authority to supersede her own. And she directed him, as her lawyer, to assist in the defense of the case, asking his office in essence to work against itself. Mr. Cox, who is running in a competitive primary to succeed Ms. Granholm, said he was obligated to do so.
“I’m perfectly willing to let her exercise her option of being wrong and being represented while she does so,” Mr. Cox said. “The reality is that the federal court recognizes the attorney general as the voice of the state in federal litigation.”
The thrust and parry has been much the same in Pennsylvania. Gov. Edward G. Rendell, a Democrat who is also barred from seeking re-election this year because of term limits, urged Attorney General Tom Corbett to withdraw from the lawsuit. “It’s hard to imagine that you take this action on behalf of those who may be sick or have a chronic illness but are uninsured,” Mr. Rendell wrote to Mr. Corbett, the leading Republican running to replace him.
Democrats who control of the State House of Representatives threatened to slash Mr. Corbett’s budget, but the Republicans in charge of the State Senate said they would not let that happen.
In Washington, Gov. Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, said she was open to using the state budget process to block Attorney General Rob McKenna, a Republican, from spending money on the suit.
“I don’t know who he represents,” Ms. Gregoire said at a news conference last week. “He doesn’t represent me.”
Midterms pose major challenge for Obama's grass-roots political organization
By Amy GardnerWashington Post Staff Writer
TUCSON -- President Obama's strategy for helping Democrats win the midterm elections was in full view at a former dance studio here more than a week ago as rotating teams of volunteers made thousands of calls about health care to residents of Arizona's 8th Congressional District.
The effort was run by Organizing for America (OFA), the president's grass-roots political organization, and the volunteers were urging Obama voters to contact Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) and express support for legislation to overhaul health care. In the end, OFA made 40,000 calls in the district, and Giffords, despite heavy targeting from opponents, voted yes.
Whether OFA, now a project of the Democratic National Committee, can sustain that success and apply it to the fall elections is uncertain. It is one thing to rally supporters behind Obama's signature domestic policy initiative. But it's something else entirely to draw that level of enthusiasm for an election in which he won't even be on the ballot.
"Getting health care passed is huge," said Jeremy Bird, OFA's deputy director, who was in Arizona recently rallying volunteers. "But we have a lot of work to do to make sure we maintain control of the House and Senate."
Health-care battle
Ina Smalzer, 65, a retiree, was one of the volunteers making calls from the headquarters of the Pima County Democratic Party. Squinting periodically at the tiny keypad of her personal cellphone, Smalzer only loosely followed the provided script, which directed her to urge people to attend an upcoming rally, call Giffords's office and write letters to the local newspaper.
"The paper today indicated that she's leaning toward a yes," Smalzer spoke clearly over the din in the room, her phone pressed to one ear and a finger plugging the other. "But it's critical that we get her vote, and because of that, we are going to have a rally so she knows that her constituents want her to vote yes." Smalzer paused, listening. "Um, we can't get the message across loud enough or often enough. We can't take a chance."
About 200 activists rallied at Giffords's office two days before last Sunday's vote, part of OFA's final 10-day push. According to organizers, more than 500,000 calls were placed to Congress, more than 1,200 rallies were held nationwide, more than 300,000 letters were mailed, and more than 150,000 text messages were sent.
C.J. Karamargin, an aide to Giffords in her Tucson office, said the number of calls from constituents was about evenly split between those for and against the health-care bill. But OFA organizers said that counts as a victory when the public -- and many in Congress -- believed that the voices against the legislation were louder.
"There was so much misinformation about the bill," said Giffords, who estimated that national opponents, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, spent about $300,000 on television ads in her district in the final days before the vote.
"If you watch 10 of these ads in the last day when you're trying to watch the basketball game, and a live person calls you and is willing to talk to you about this bill -- that makes a difference," Giffords said.
Bird, OFA's deputy director, said the perception that Obama's base had withered is a "D.C. bubble thing." But he acknowledged that the decibel level of the opposition has succeeded at times in drowning out the president's message.
Rebuilding the brand
Organizing for America came into existence shortly after Obama's inauguration with the goal of transforming the campaign's fabled grass-roots operation into a permanent structure that could mobilize 13 million supporters for any political or policy cause with a keystroke.
OFA began as a bare-bones operation involving two people within the DNC, but by mid-2009, it began building a national organization in preparation for the health-care debate. That effort was overshadowed, however, by opponents of the health-care bill, who made headlines with angry displays at town-hall meetings across the country.
It's still not clear that the breadth of Obama supporters from the presidential campaign is fully engaged today. The health-care issue drew out large numbers of older volunteers as part of a "Senior to Senior" effort that OFA staged across the country, matching the demographics of its current crop of volunteers with its target audience.
"I believe very strongly in health care," Smalzer said. "I thought it was critical, vital, that it be passed. And I felt I needed to do something."
If OFA is to have an impact on the midterms, it must elicit similar commitment from people who were not so engaged on the health-care issue. Democrats face a particularly difficult election season because of the state of the economy, mistrust of Obama's agenda and an energized opposition. Then there is the challenge of adapting a grass-roots organization centered on the popularity of one man to hundreds of congressional campaigns across the country.
"We don't have the brand we had in 2008, when we elected the first African American president," said Ashley Piñedo, OFA's regional field director for the Phoenix area.
There may be no better example of that challenge than the electoral defeats Democrats have suffered since Obama took office. First were the gubernatorial races last year in New Jersey and Virginia. Most stinging of all for Obama supporters was the election of Republican Scott Brown on Jan. 19 to the Senate seat long held by Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who died Aug. 25. If OFA could not rally its base to ensure that the seat once held by the nation's most ardent proponent of health-care reform remained in Democratic hands, how can it hope to cut its losses this fall? It is a view that weighs heavily on the minds of Obama supporters.
"Did OFA not have any staffers in Massachusetts until January?" asked Kathy Killeen, a Democratic organizer from Green Valley, a suburb of Tucson, at a strategy session with state organizers this month. "From our perspective, you didn't have a very good result. You lost an election, and you waited too long to show up."
Mapping out a strategy
Supporters have other misgivings about OFA and its prospects as well, but they say they are more energized than they have been in months. On a warm evening at OFA's Arizona headquarters in Phoenix this month, about 60 supporters gathered for a strategy session to map out the future of the local organization. It was one of several hundred such sessions held across the nation, intended to re-engage the base from 2008.
The gathering had the feel of a political campaign, a pep rally for volunteers complete with posters on the walls ("Respect. Empower. Include.") and sign-up sheets on the tables. A state director, regional directors and community organizers were on hand to urge action with PowerPoint slides, breakout sessions and rousing speeches about keeping alive the hope they all felt in 2008.
They touted Obama's accomplishments: the economic stimulus bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court justice.
They showed how many voters they must reach this year to raise turnout and reverse the trend line of midterm election results. Only 42 percent of first-time voters in 2004 returned to the polling booth in 2006. There were 437,000 first-time voters in Arizona in 2008, a group that is young and heavily Latino. At least 80,000 of them are unlikely to vote without contact from OFA, organizers say.
"If we only focus on [past] midterm voters this year, Democrats will lose," said Jessica Jones, OFA's Arizona director.
They brainstormed how to reach those voters. And there was a mix of excitement and frustration about Obama's path thus far.
"There have been too many changes, too many compromises to the promises of President Obama," said Gurpreet Brar, 33, a researcher from Glendale.
"We have allowed the other side to control the conversation," said Phoenix resident Terry Araman, who works at a homeless shelter.
"OFA was the cavalry that came in and saved the day!" said Michael Popovich, a teacher and OFA community organizer.
It remains to be seen whether the cavalry can ride again.
Foreign Policy:
In Afghanistan, Obama Presses Karzai to Fight Corruption
By HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON — President Obama made an unannounced visit to Afghanistan on Sunday, his first as commander in chief to the site of the war he inherited and has stamped as his own.
Air Force One landed at nighttime at Bagram Air Base after a 13-hour nonstop flight for a visit shrouded in secrecy for security reasons; Mr. Obama quickly boarded a helicopter for the trip to Kabul, landing at the presidential palace for talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.
While Mr. Obama noted that military progress has been made in Afghanistan, he added, pointedly, that “we also want to continue to make progress on the civilian process,” mentioning several areas, including governance, anti-corruption and the rule of law.
His remarks came as he stood next to Mr. Karzai at the presidential palace after their meeting. Mr. Karzai is expected to visit Washington in May for additional talks.
In his comments, Mr. Karzai promised that his country “would move forward into the future” to eventually take over its own security, and he thanked Mr. Obama for the American intervention in his country, The Associated Press reported.
White House officials said before the meeting that Mr. Obama planned to press Mr. Karzai on a number of concerns, in particular the failure of Mr. Karzai to make good on promises he made to the international community on anti-corruption, governance and even reintegration with certain reconcilable members of the Taliban insurgency.
Gen. James L. Jones, the National Security Adviser, told reporters aboard the flight to Bagram that Mr. Obama would try to make Mr. Karzai “understand that in his second term, there are certain things that have not been paid attention to, almost since day one.” General Jones said those things included “a merit-based system for appointment of key government officials, battling corruption, taking the fight to the narco-traffickers,” which, he said, “provides a lot of the economic engine for the insurgents.”
At the presidential palace, Mr. Obama and Mr. Karzai walked and chatted along a red carpet as they made their way to an Afghan color guard, where the national anthems of both countries were played, in a welcoming ceremony that lasted 10 minutes.
White House officials disclosed no information about the trip until Mr. Obama’s plane had landed in Afghanistan, and had even gone so far as to inform reporters that the president would be spending the weekend at Camp David with his family. In fact, Mr. Obama’s trip occurred during the Afghan night, and he was already headed back to Washington.
Besides General Jones, Mr. Obama was accompanied by his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and several White House and Defense officials.
Mr. Obama also met with some of the tens of thousands of American troops who have been sent to Afghanistan since he took office. His visit with the troops is particularly significant because it comes at the same time that military officials report that the number of American troops killed in Afghanistan has roughly doubled in the first three months of 2010, compared to the same period last year.
The number of soldiers wounded in combat has also spiked dramatically. Military officials have warned that casualties are likely to continue to rise sharply as the Pentagon completes the deployment of another 30,000 soldiers, per Afghanistan strategy announced by Mr. Obama back in November. The reason for the spike, military officials said, is because American forces are aggressively seeking out Taliban insurgents in the country’s population centers, and are planning a major operation in the Kandahar, the spiritual home of the Taliban.
Mr. Obama’s trip to Afghanistan caps a high-profile week in which the president coupled a singular domestic policy victory — the signing of a health reform bill — with the foreign policy achievement: reaching an arms control agreement with Russia in which the two nuclear powers agreed to slash their nuclear arsenals to the lowest levels in half a century.
The Afghanistan trip also shows the president pivoting to national security concerns now that he has gotten the bulk of the health care fight behind him. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France is to visit Mr. Obama this week in Washington, and Mr. Obama will be hosting a nuclear nonproliferation summit in Washington next month.
The Palm Sunday visit to American combat troops by their commander in chief is meant, in part, to project the image of an American president keeping on top of several issues at once.
At the same time, though, Mr. Obama’s visit to Afghanistan as commander in chief has been a long time coming. While he visited troops at Camp Victory, Iraq, three months after he was inaugurated, the White House has held off on a presidential visit to Afghanistan as Mr. Obama went through a rigorous months-long review of Afghanistan strategy, and as that country endured the twists and turns of a disputed election.
Even after Mr. Karzai was inaugurated and Mr. Obama announced that he would send an additional 30,000 American troops, Mr. Obama still put off a trip as he focused on his domestic priorities, including a health care bill.
Indeed, some members of the military have privately expressed concern that since announcing the Afghanistan troop increase, Mr. Obama has not talked much about the war there.
Mr. Obama appeared to be trying to address that on Sunday during his remarks with Mr. Karzai. “One of the main reasons I’m here is to just say thank you for the incredible efforts of our troops and our coalition partners,” he said. “They make tremendous sacrifices far away from home, and I want to make sure they know how proud their commander in chief is of them.”
Sarkozy, and France, Look to U.S. Visit
By BRIAN KNOWLTON
WASHINGTON — President Nicolas Sarkozy of France travels to the United States on Monday for a two-day trip designed to underscore his close cooperation with President Barack Obama on Afghanistan, Iran and other issues, and apparently to make a statement about their personal relationship.
The trip, culminating in a news conference Tuesday and then a private dinner at the White House, comes at a crucial time for both.
Mr. Obama has just scored two major victories — the passage of historic health-care legislation and agreement with Russia on a new strategic arms control treaty — and is heading into a period of heavy international engagement.
Mr. Sarkozy, for his part, has seen his popularity fade and his party suffer stinging defeats in regional elections. At the same time he is preparing for a crucial stint on the world stage as France takes leadership of both the Group of Eight and the Group of Twenty.
As the newspaper Le Parisien put it, “This meeting could not come at a better time” for Mr. Sarkozy.
The closeness of the Sarkozy-Obama relationship — and for that matter, of Mr. Obama with other European leaders — has been questioned, based on issues like Mr. Obama’s decision in February to skip an annual U.S.-European summit meeting.
But in an interview here last week with the International Herald Tribune and three French correspondents, the national security adviser, James L. Jones Jr., repeatedly rejected the notion of any strains.
He called Mr. Sarkozy a “very helpful and steadfast ally” on Iran and “a strong adviser and supporter on the Middle East.” If Mr. Sarkozy sometimes urges the American president to push harder in both areas, said the general, Mr. Obama appreciated the “honest exchange of views.”
General Jones, a former supreme allied commander in Europe, said that Mr. Obama had particularly appreciated Mr. Sarkozy’s decision to bring France back into NATO’s military wing and Paris’s “strong support” on Afghanistan.
The United States has been pressing its NATO allies to provide more military trainers for Afghanistan. French officials have been quoted as saying they will send no more, but General Jones appeared to leave open the possibility that Mr. Sarkozy would make such a gesture during the visit.
While the general acknowledged that as NATO commander he had known frustration over allied contributions in Afghanistan, he said that he had never seen better cooperation within NATO. “We’ve achieved a major breakthrough in how we think of Afghanistan and Pakistan,” he said, “and there is a new sense of energy that we can be successful.”
He played down two areas of friction. The announcement that France had agreed to sell four Mistral-class warships to Russia might once have raised American hackles. But General Jones seemed unperturbed. “It was not the subject of any serious bone of contention,” he said, adding that the United States, too, wanted better relations with Moscow.
Europeans were deeply unhappy when the Pentagon, while taking bids for a huge contract to supply aerial refueling tankers, changed the plane’s specifications in a way they interpreted as giving an advantage to the chief American bidder, Boeing, to the detriment of the European aerospace group EADS.
General Jones asserted that as a former director of Boeing he could not comment. But he said that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates had “assured the president that the Department of Defense wants the competition to be fair and equal for all parties.”
The presidents also are expected to discuss some differences: France wants the United States to institute tougher financial regulations and to undertake more resolute action on climate change.
Mr. Sarkozy is to open his trip with a speech Monday at Columbia University in New York. He then is to meet with the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon.
In Washington on Tuesday, he plans to meet with several senators before the presidents hold a late-afternoon news conference.
They are then to adjourn, with Michelle Obama and Carla Sarkozy, for a private dinner that French officials are calling “testimony to a particularly close friendship.”
Opinion Pieces:
Health-care overhaul begins nowBy Ezra Klein
As someone who has spent the past year tangled in the minutia of excise taxes and curve bending and subsidy levels, it is good to finally say this: With the passage of the reconciliation fixes, the health-care reform debate is finally over. But if you're thrilled to hear that, then I also have some bad news: Health-care reform itself is just beginning.
This bill marks an evolution, not a revolution, for our health-care system. Whether it proves the cornerstone of a better, fairer, more affordable system or simply another expansion of the federal welfare state has as much to do with what happens when the law is implemented as with what's written in the legislation.
The system will not change in a year. Even by 2014, when it is broadly implemented, life will not change for most people. This is not single-payer (though you wouldn't know it listening to the GOP) or the ambitious Wyden-Bennett reforms. Come 2019, about 10 percent of Americans will have a different insurance arrangement than they would have had without the bill. Most of us won't notice any difference.
But right around then, the system could go one of two ways. The key is the regulated insurance exchanges. They are where the bill's most transformative reforms happen: Risk-adjustment payments so insurers aren't penalized for having sicker customers, regulations so they can't discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, and transparency requirements so individuals can see the full cost of insurance plans and compare them based on quality and satisfaction measures.
But they're closed to most Americans.
At the beginning, the exchanges will be open to individuals and very small businesses. In fact, states can operate two exchanges: one for individuals, and one for small businesses, though why they would is beyond me. Either way, a large employer cannot simply buy its workers into the exchange. Nor is an employee of a large firm that offers health-care insurance allowed to buy in on her own.
There are two reasons for this, one good and one bad. The good: The bill's architects were worried that only employers with older and sicker workers would enter the exchanges at the beginning and that would overwhelm them; this way, the exchanges have time to get up and running before employers enter. The bad: The bill's architects were worried about letting employers change the coverage they offer workers.
In 2017, states can decide whether to let large employers into the exchanges. That's important: The exchanges are the bridge between the employer-based system we have -- where few know how much their insurance costs or have any choice about what kind to buy -- and the competitive system we need. But just because there is a bridge doesn't mean we'll walk over it. At this point, you can imagine two paths for health-care reform:
In one world, states wouldn't open the exchanges. The markets would remain limited to individuals and small businesses. Most of the participants are lower income and using subsidies. We'd stay in a tiered health-care system, in which the exchanges would join Medicaid as a place where those who can't afford coverage could get it and the employer market would remain the central organizing structure of the health-care system.
In another world, the states would open the exchanges. And in that world, they've been preparing to open the exchanges. That means they would run them efficiently and conscientiously. Also states would take advantage of the law's provision allowing them to partner with one another. An exchange run by Delaware and Pennsylvania and Ohio and Virginia is going to be a lot stronger and have a lot more competition among insurers than an exchange run by Delaware alone.
At that point, large employers, tired of administering their own health-care plans, would begin buying their workers into the exchanges. More customers would mean a more competitive market that has clear prices and quality measures and would create a virtuous cycle in which prices go down and quality goes up.
Does that sound hopelessly idyllic to you? Yeah, me too. But that's because we're used to the dispiriting mess that is the American health-care system. This rosy future is pretty much how things work in Switzerland and in the Netherlands, so it's certainly not impossible. You're really saying that the Swiss are better than us?
The legislation Obama signed into law last week doesn't promise sufficient reform, but it does lay down many of the necessary preconditions for it. It is an incremental bill with a comprehensive vision tucked inside. Tired as we all are, the work of realizing that vision starts now.
Pass the arms treaty
By John F. Kerry
A YEAR ago, President Obama threw his weight behind efforts to make the world safer from nuclear weapons. It is working. On April 8, he will sign a new arms control treaty with Russia that would cut the nuclear arsenals of both countries and reinforce America’s leadership on efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons.
A few weeks later, responsibility for reviewing the treaty will fall to the Senate. A two-thirds vote will be required to approve its ratification. This means Democrats and Republicans will have to support this treaty.
Skeptics will say this is poor timing for any measure that depends on bipartisan backing. The passage of health care reform over unified Republican opposition is only the latest evidence of the bitter divisions between the two parties. But it is incumbent upon my colleagues to break the partisan stalemate by considering this treaty on its merits.
The new agreement is the result of a year of hard-nosed negotiations. Even when the old treaty expired last December and some warned that immediate action was required, American negotiators were patient and fought to guarantee that no provisions would weaken our national security or restrain our ability to defend ourselves.The result will be significant reductions in the nuclear warheads and strategic delivery systems of both the United States and Russia, and a verification regime that insures Russia will keep its pledges. It builds on President Ronald Reagan’s maxim: “trust, but verify.’’
Senate approval would tell the world that the two countries with 95 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons are fulfilling their obligations to reduce their arsenals under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. In crafting the treaty, the administration listened to the concerns of the Senate. The final language does not tie our hands on missile defense, and the verification regime reflects the realities of our post-Cold War world. For the first time, we will count the number of actual warheads on Russian missiles.
Critics contend that any negotiated reduction in our nuclear weapons endangers our national security. From everything I have seen and heard, this treaty bolsters our security and merits our support.
No one expects a treaty with Russia to end the nuclear ambitions of countries like Iran and North Korea and terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda. But by signing this treaty, the president will change the global dynamic on non-proliferation and allow us to increase pressure on Iran to adhere to its commitment under the NPT not to develop nuclear weapons. Signing the treaty also will reflect progress in our relations with Russia. Since President Obama “reset’’ the relationship, the Russians have pledged to support diplomatic efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions and helped get supplies to US troops in Afghanistan. Uncertainties and differences remain between the two countries, but that should be seen as an argument for the treaty, not against it.
There is reason to hope for bipartisan support. Large majorities of Republicans and Democrats approved arms control agreements with Russia in 1992, 1996 and 2003. During the 2008 presidential campaign, both Obama and Senator John McCain agreed to put America on the path toward a world without nuclear weapons, a position endorsed by a bipartisan group of 17 of the last 24 secretaries of state and defense and national security advisers. Obama should bring this august group to the Rose Garden to demonstrate this new consensus to the public and the Senate.
In the coming weeks, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will conduct vigorous hearings that will probe every aspect of the treaty. We will hear from key officials from the current and past administrations. With the help of Senator Richard Lugar, the committee’s ranking Republican, I am sure we will achieve the necessary level of certainty to reassure our colleagues and the American people that this treaty will make our world safer.
Congressional District Newsletter
This week we look at Colorado's 4th congressional district, a largely rural district that generally leans Republican. The incumbent, however, is a Freshman democrat, Betsy Markey, the first democrat to hold the seat since 1972. Here is the Newsletter:
COLORADO’S 4th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
District Background
Colorado’s 4th Congressional District encompasses the eastern part of the state and consists mostly of rural areas, with the occasional city such as Fort Collins and Greeley. According to the 2000 US Census, the district’s population lies around 614,466; about 79% white, with minorities, mostly Hispanic, making up the remainder. About 14% speak a language other than English primarily. The median household income is $43,389; about 1.8% makes $200,000 or more annually. The workforce is made up approximately 60% white collar, 26% blue collar, with the remaining 14% in the service industry. 29% reported having a bachelor’s degree, with 10.1% having some form of graduate education. This appears to be a younger district, with 26.1% under the age of 18 and only 10.4% over the age of 65.[1]
In 2009, the 4th District was responsible for over 540 applications to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) which led to 240 approved contracts and over 161,682 total acres being treated. These tracts of land were introduced to such practices as superior irrigation management as well as livestock grazing and waste management. Similarly 4 farms totaling over 370 acres were preserved solely for use in agriculture through easements under the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP). These statistics are among the highest in any Coloradoan district, suggesting that clean agriculture represents a significant interest in the 4th District.[2] There are a large amount of federal employees in agricultural areas, with a large number especially in Larimer County.[3] 4.9% of employed residents of Colorado are involved in construction, which is the 4th highest state nationwide for percent of its workforce in residential construction.[4] The 4th District contains 56,022 veterans, or over 9.1% of the population[5], which is a significant voting bloc.
In 2009 as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the city of Fort Collins received $18.1 million in funding for the development of a smart-grid energy management system. The system includes almost 80,000 installations of smart thermostats, air conditioners and water heaters in homes.[6] In addition Fort Collins has instituted a Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Rebate Program, rewarding businesses that commit to utilize improvements that reduce electrical bills and encourage energy efficiency.[7] The 4th District has a variety of alternative energy companies, such as Ascent Solar and Solix Biofuels. The efforts of the district to improve both efficiency from current energy sources as well as exploration of alternative energy sources suggest that energy plays a key role in the politics of the area.
2010 Midterm Election
Electoral History
The 4th District of Colorado generally leans republican, and narrowly voted for John McCain in the 2008 presidential race, and voted for George W. Bush with a landslide 17 points in the 2004 race. In 2008, Betsy Markey supplanted three-term republican incumbent Marilyn Musgrave for the U.S. Representative seat. She won by 41,000 votes, or 12.4 percentage points.[8] Before Markey won in 2008, the seat had been solidly republican since the 1972.[9]
The Candidates
Incumbent:
· Betsy Markey (D) – Markey holds degrees from the University of Florida and American University, and has worked in the Treasury and State Department in Washington, D.C. She worked as the Director of Computer Security Policy and Training in the State Department, where she held a top secret security clearance. Markey has also owned a small business.
Challengers:
· Cory Gardner (R) – Gardner graduated summa cum laude from Colorado State University where he also earned his law degree. He worked as a Representative in the Colorado State House of Representatives. He worked as General Counsel and Legislative Director for Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) before becoming a Colorado State Representative.
· Tom Lucero (R) – Lucero is a small business owner who prides himself on his conservative values such as fiscal responsibility, 2nd Amendment rights, person freedom, and patriotism. He served 11 years on the Board of Regents and worked to expand the teaching of “American history, values, and texts.”
· Dean Madere (R) – Madere is a middle class citizen who has not held elected office, but participated in the Tax Day Tea Party and organized the Loveland 912 Project. He is driven to participate in public service on behalf of the average frustrated and concerned American citizen.
· Greg Brophy (R) – Brophy grew up in Colorado and graduated from Colorado State University for animal sciences. He managed his own farm after college and got involved in state politics. He served in the House of Representatives for a couple years before entering the Senate.
On the Issues
Betsy Markey (D) -
· Agriculture: Markey is a member of the House Agricultural Committee and values agriculture and U.S. farmers and ranchers. She believes in supporting small businesses and beginning farmers, as well as encouraging constituents to buy local food in order to cut down shipping costs and improve accountability for the quality of food.
· Economic Growth & Fiscal Discipline: In Congress Markey supported pay-as-you-do budgeting, which required any new government spending to be offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget. She believes in creating jobs and rebuilding the economy.[10]
Cory Gardner (R) -
· Agriculture: As one of the top economic drives in the state, agriculture is a high priority for Gardner. He serves on the House Agriculture, Natural Resources and Livestock Committee and supports “opening new markets, creating value added opportunities, furthering renewable energy development, and continued advancements in crop technologies.”
· Water: Garner believes in protecting water rights, water right holders, and Colorado water law. There is growing demand for Colorado’s water, and the needs of water users needs to be balanced with the needs of the environment and recreation.[11]
Tom Lucero (R) -
· Jobs & The Economy: Government is standing in the way of the economy, and is preventing investment and job creation. Small businesses are vitally important to the economy, and leaders in Washington need to understand this perspective.
· Federal Spending & National Debt: Out of control spending needs to be stopped, and there needs to be greater accountability and transparency in the budget process. Lucero promises to work to enact reforms to cut down on government waste and reduce the size of the federal government.[12]
Dean Madere (R) -
· Proper Role of Government: Madere believes in small government and limited government, as the framers of the Constitution intended. It is not the role of the government to get involved in every issue, and should stay within its role as spelled out in the Constitution.
· Energy: There should be open competition between all forms of energy, and the government should not tell states how they should produce or use energy.[13]
Greg Brophy (R) -
· Limited Government, Personal Responsibility, Protection of private property rights, and Fiscal Responsibility[14]
[1] http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-2010-CO-04
[2] US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service http://www.co.nrcs.usda.gov/news/pas/Publications/FactSheets/2009%20Fact%20Sheets/Congressional_Dist09.pdf
[3] State of Colorado http://www.few.org/docs/legislative/map/Colorado.pdf
[4] National Association of Home Builders http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?sectionID=734&genericContentID=65865&channelID=311
[5] CQ Politics
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-2010-CO-04
[6] Northern Colorado Business Report http://www.ncbr.com/article.asp?id=102722
[7] City of Fort Collins http://www.fcgov.com/conservation/biz-eep.php
[8] CQPolitics – http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-2010-CO-04
[9] http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20100316/LOVELAND0102/303160009/1192/LOVELAND/Another+poll+shows+majority+of+4th+Congressional+District+voters+oppose+Democrats++health+plan
[10] “Betsy Markey for Congress – Issues” http://www.markeyforcongress.com/
[11] Cory Gardner – Issues http://corygardner.com/issues
[12] Tom on the Issues - http://www.lucero2010.com/Issues.aspx
[13] Dean’s Position on the Issues - http://www.deanmadere.org/issues
[14] Greg Brophy – http://www.gregbrophy.net/
COLORADO’S 4th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
District Background
Colorado’s 4th Congressional District encompasses the eastern part of the state and consists mostly of rural areas, with the occasional city such as Fort Collins and Greeley. According to the 2000 US Census, the district’s population lies around 614,466; about 79% white, with minorities, mostly Hispanic, making up the remainder. About 14% speak a language other than English primarily. The median household income is $43,389; about 1.8% makes $200,000 or more annually. The workforce is made up approximately 60% white collar, 26% blue collar, with the remaining 14% in the service industry. 29% reported having a bachelor’s degree, with 10.1% having some form of graduate education. This appears to be a younger district, with 26.1% under the age of 18 and only 10.4% over the age of 65.[1]
In 2009, the 4th District was responsible for over 540 applications to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) which led to 240 approved contracts and over 161,682 total acres being treated. These tracts of land were introduced to such practices as superior irrigation management as well as livestock grazing and waste management. Similarly 4 farms totaling over 370 acres were preserved solely for use in agriculture through easements under the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP). These statistics are among the highest in any Coloradoan district, suggesting that clean agriculture represents a significant interest in the 4th District.[2] There are a large amount of federal employees in agricultural areas, with a large number especially in Larimer County.[3] 4.9% of employed residents of Colorado are involved in construction, which is the 4th highest state nationwide for percent of its workforce in residential construction.[4] The 4th District contains 56,022 veterans, or over 9.1% of the population[5], which is a significant voting bloc.
In 2009 as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the city of Fort Collins received $18.1 million in funding for the development of a smart-grid energy management system. The system includes almost 80,000 installations of smart thermostats, air conditioners and water heaters in homes.[6] In addition Fort Collins has instituted a Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Rebate Program, rewarding businesses that commit to utilize improvements that reduce electrical bills and encourage energy efficiency.[7] The 4th District has a variety of alternative energy companies, such as Ascent Solar and Solix Biofuels. The efforts of the district to improve both efficiency from current energy sources as well as exploration of alternative energy sources suggest that energy plays a key role in the politics of the area.
2010 Midterm Election
Electoral History
The 4th District of Colorado generally leans republican, and narrowly voted for John McCain in the 2008 presidential race, and voted for George W. Bush with a landslide 17 points in the 2004 race. In 2008, Betsy Markey supplanted three-term republican incumbent Marilyn Musgrave for the U.S. Representative seat. She won by 41,000 votes, or 12.4 percentage points.[8] Before Markey won in 2008, the seat had been solidly republican since the 1972.[9]
The Candidates
Incumbent:
· Betsy Markey (D) – Markey holds degrees from the University of Florida and American University, and has worked in the Treasury and State Department in Washington, D.C. She worked as the Director of Computer Security Policy and Training in the State Department, where she held a top secret security clearance. Markey has also owned a small business.
Challengers:
· Cory Gardner (R) – Gardner graduated summa cum laude from Colorado State University where he also earned his law degree. He worked as a Representative in the Colorado State House of Representatives. He worked as General Counsel and Legislative Director for Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) before becoming a Colorado State Representative.
· Tom Lucero (R) – Lucero is a small business owner who prides himself on his conservative values such as fiscal responsibility, 2nd Amendment rights, person freedom, and patriotism. He served 11 years on the Board of Regents and worked to expand the teaching of “American history, values, and texts.”
· Dean Madere (R) – Madere is a middle class citizen who has not held elected office, but participated in the Tax Day Tea Party and organized the Loveland 912 Project. He is driven to participate in public service on behalf of the average frustrated and concerned American citizen.
· Greg Brophy (R) – Brophy grew up in Colorado and graduated from Colorado State University for animal sciences. He managed his own farm after college and got involved in state politics. He served in the House of Representatives for a couple years before entering the Senate.
On the Issues
Betsy Markey (D) -
· Agriculture: Markey is a member of the House Agricultural Committee and values agriculture and U.S. farmers and ranchers. She believes in supporting small businesses and beginning farmers, as well as encouraging constituents to buy local food in order to cut down shipping costs and improve accountability for the quality of food.
· Economic Growth & Fiscal Discipline: In Congress Markey supported pay-as-you-do budgeting, which required any new government spending to be offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget. She believes in creating jobs and rebuilding the economy.[10]
Cory Gardner (R) -
· Agriculture: As one of the top economic drives in the state, agriculture is a high priority for Gardner. He serves on the House Agriculture, Natural Resources and Livestock Committee and supports “opening new markets, creating value added opportunities, furthering renewable energy development, and continued advancements in crop technologies.”
· Water: Garner believes in protecting water rights, water right holders, and Colorado water law. There is growing demand for Colorado’s water, and the needs of water users needs to be balanced with the needs of the environment and recreation.[11]
Tom Lucero (R) -
· Jobs & The Economy: Government is standing in the way of the economy, and is preventing investment and job creation. Small businesses are vitally important to the economy, and leaders in Washington need to understand this perspective.
· Federal Spending & National Debt: Out of control spending needs to be stopped, and there needs to be greater accountability and transparency in the budget process. Lucero promises to work to enact reforms to cut down on government waste and reduce the size of the federal government.[12]
Dean Madere (R) -
· Proper Role of Government: Madere believes in small government and limited government, as the framers of the Constitution intended. It is not the role of the government to get involved in every issue, and should stay within its role as spelled out in the Constitution.
· Energy: There should be open competition between all forms of energy, and the government should not tell states how they should produce or use energy.[13]
Greg Brophy (R) -
· Limited Government, Personal Responsibility, Protection of private property rights, and Fiscal Responsibility[14]
[1] http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-2010-CO-04
[2] US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service http://www.co.nrcs.usda.gov/news/pas/Publications/FactSheets/2009%20Fact%20Sheets/Congressional_Dist09.pdf
[3] State of Colorado http://www.few.org/docs/legislative/map/Colorado.pdf
[4] National Association of Home Builders http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?sectionID=734&genericContentID=65865&channelID=311
[5] CQ Politics
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-2010-CO-04
[6] Northern Colorado Business Report http://www.ncbr.com/article.asp?id=102722
[7] City of Fort Collins http://www.fcgov.com/conservation/biz-eep.php
[8] CQPolitics – http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-2010-CO-04
[9] http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20100316/LOVELAND0102/303160009/1192/LOVELAND/Another+poll+shows+majority+of+4th+Congressional+District+voters+oppose+Democrats++health+plan
[10] “Betsy Markey for Congress – Issues” http://www.markeyforcongress.com/
[11] Cory Gardner – Issues http://corygardner.com/issues
[12] Tom on the Issues - http://www.lucero2010.com/Issues.aspx
[13] Dean’s Position on the Issues - http://www.deanmadere.org/issues
[14] Greg Brophy – http://www.gregbrophy.net/
Thursday, March 11, 2010
American Politics Newsletter 3/11/10
This week's political newsletter includes commentary on campaign finance reform and America's economy, along with reports on US aid to Haiti, and the withdrawal schedule from Iraq. Also included is an especially interesting article on an American woman in custody for supporting terrorist activities whose average appearance kept her somewhat off of the FBI's radar.
Here is a link to this week's newsletter: http://www.umasscivic-apd.com/SiteData/apd/Newsletter_3.10[1].doc
Here is a link to this week's newsletter: http://www.umasscivic-apd.com/SiteData/apd/Newsletter_3.10[1].doc
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Congressional District Newsletter
Along with our newsletter on large-scale newspaper on American politics, we will be posting frequent analyses of competitive congressional elections in November. Our first district is Alabama's 2nd congressional district, and an analysis of the political demographics and candidates for congress of this district can be found here:
http://www.umasscivic-apd.com/SiteData/apd/District%20Background.doc
http://www.umasscivic-apd.com/SiteData/apd/District%20Background.doc
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Republican Civil War
Here is an interesting analysis of the current state of the republican party. It analyzes the Republican candidates in upcoming gubernatorial and senate primary elections this year, and whether or not these competitive primaries will help or hurt republicans in unseating Democrats this November:
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-republican-civil-war?page=0,0
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-republican-civil-war?page=0,0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)